This is the first systematic and detailed study of Pausanias' viewof Roman involvement in Greece. It begins with an assessment ofPausanias' life and writings, placing them in their contemporarypolitical, historical, literary and cultural context. Pausanias'attitudes towards the art and artists of the pre-Roman period arealso considered, and his attempts to define and analyse the pastexamined. Much of the book is devoted to the assessment ofPausanias' attitudes to the political Republican leaders Mummius,Sulla and Julius Caesar, emperors from Augustus to MarcusAurelius, and benefactors such as Herodes Atticus. The studyreveals the complexity and sophistication of Pausanias' critiqueof the actions and attitudes of prominent Roman personalitiesengaged with the Greek world.

This book will be of value to scholars and students working onGreek and Roman history and on classical archaeology and art.It also contains material for those interested more generally inRome and Greece, in ancient art and religion, and in travel inthe ancient world.

PAUSANIAS' GREECE

PAUSANIAS' GREECEAncient artists and Roman rulers

K.W.ARAFATLecturer in Classical Archaeology, King's College London

CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITY PRESS

PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGEThe Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

40 West 20th Street, New York NY 10011-4211, USA477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia

Ruiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, SpainDock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa

http://www.cambridge.org

© Cambridge University Press 1996

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place withoutthe written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 1996First paperback edition 2004

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data

Arafat, K. W. (KarimW.)Pausanias' Greece : ancient artists and Roman rulers / Karim Arafat.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index

ISBN 0 521 55340 7 (hardback)1. Pausanias - Knowledge - Greece. 2. Greece - Civilization. 3. Rome -

Civilization. 4. Greece - Antiquities. 5. Rome - Kings and rulers.6. Emperors - Rome. 7. Rome - Relations - Greece. 8. Greece -

Relations - Rome. I. Title.DF27.P383A73 1996

938-dc20 95-32378 CIP

ISBN 0 521 55340 7 hardbackISBN 0 521 60418 4 paperback

Transferred to digital printing 2004

For Hector Catling

Contents

Map of Roman Greece page xPreface and acknowledgements xiiiList of abbreviations xv

1 Introduction i

2 Pausanias on the past 43

3 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 1: introduction,Mummius and Sulla 80

4 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2: Caesar andAugustus 106

5 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3: Nero toMarcus Aurelius 139

6 Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors 191

7 Conclusions 202

Bibliography 216Index of Pausanias passages cited 232Index of other authors and passages cited 236General index 241

Map of Roman Greece

Preface and acknowledgements

The origin of this study lies unashamedly in its author's fascinationwith Pausanias, who has been (to borrow a phrase used by Sir JohnBeazley of the Berlin Painter) 'a friendly presence' in the study, in thelecture room and on site for ten years.

Chapter 2 is adapted from Arafat (1992), parts of which have alsobeen used in chapter 1 (with the kind permission of the British Schoolat Athens). References to Pausanias are taken from the Teubneredition ofM.H. Rocha-Pereira, vols. 1—in (2nd edn, Leipzig 1989—90).Unless otherwise specified, translations of Pausanias are taken fromFrazer vol. 1, and of other authors from the Loeb editions, in bothcases with modifications. Transliterations are mainly Hellenized, butsome inconsistencies result from the retention of familiar forms.

The researching of this book, as well as its writing, has beenimmeasurably enhanced by the companionship of Catherine Morganwho (if I may return the compliment) 'bore the rigours of fieldworkwith fortitude'. I also owe much to my parents for their unstintingsupport, expressed in so many forms. I have benefited greatly fromthe patient encouragement of Pauline Hire of Cambridge UniversityPress, and from the comments of the anonymous referees. The help ofthe staff and volunteers of the Library of the Institute of ClassicalStudies in London has considerably facilitated my work.

I would particularly like to thank Antony Spawforth for adviceand support at all stages and Ewen Bowie for many perceptivedetailed comments as well as a broader view. Geoffrey Waywell andRichard Hawley also read the entire manuscript at an earlier stageand improved it. I have gained much from discussions with CharlotteRoueche, Jane Rowlandson, Michael Silk, Michael Trapp and RuthWebb, and from their comments. I derived much from two periegeseisin September 1994: of Olympia with Ulrich Sinn, accompanied bykeen discussion of many of the issues raised here; and of Aizanoi (on

xiv Preface and acknowledgements

the trail of a Panhellene) with Jennifer Tobin, to whom I am alsoindebted for advice on Herodes Atticus.

This book owes much to the students who participated in mycourses on Pausanias at King's College London between 1991 and1994, and to those students who patiently tolerated my frequent use ofhim on site during the undergraduate courses of the British School atAthens in 1985, 1986, 1988, and 1991. Their questions promptedmany of my lines of enquiry, and made me amply aware of a gap inPausanias studies which needed filling. Whether this book answerstheir need, only they can tell, but I thank them for confirming mybelief in the complementary nature of teaching and research.

The British School at Athens afforded me, as it has so many others,a unique opportunity to broaden my horizons and to understandGreece, ancient and modern. My first teaching was undertaken onthe BSA course of 1985 at the invitation of Hector Catling, and hisgentle and purposeful encouragement has continued unbroken sincethen. I count it a privilege that my two years at the School (1983-5)were spent under his directorship, and it is as some small return that Igratefully dedicate this book to him.

Abbreviations

AAAAAAJAAJPAMAnnuarioANRWARBARBCHBICSBSACAHCL Ant.CQ.CRCRAICSCAErgonFrazer

GRBSHSCPIGJHSJRAJRSPapahatzis

Archdologischer AnzeigerAthens Annals of ArchaeologyAmerican Journal of ArchaeologyAmerican Journal of PhilologyAthenische MitteilungenAnnuario della Scuola archeologica di AteneAufstieg und Niedergang der romischen WeltArchaeological ReportsBritish Archaeological ReportsBulletin de Correspondance HelleniqueBulletin of the Institute of Classical StudiesAnnual of the British School at AthensCambridge Ancient HistoryClassical AntiquityClassical QuarterlyClassical ReviewComptes Rendus de VAcademie des Inscriptions et Belles-LettresCalifornia Studies in Classical AntiquityTO 'Epyov Tfjs ev 'A0f]vais 'ApxouoAoyiK'ns 'ETaipeiasJ.G. Frazer, Pausanias's description of Greece i—vi (London1898)Greek, Roman and Byzantine StudiesHarvard Studies in Classical PhilologyInscriptiones GraecaeJournal of Hellenic StudiesJournal of Roman ArchaeologyJournal of Roman StudiesN. Papahatzis, TTauaaviou 'EAAa5os T7epir)yr|ais 1-5(Athens 1974-81)

xvi Abbreviations

RE Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie der klassischen Alter-tumswissenschaft

REG Revue des Etudes GrecquesREL Revue des Etudes LatinesSIG Sylloge Inscriptionum GraecarumTAP A Transactions of the American Philological AssociationTCS Yale Classical Studies

CHAPTER I

Introduction

In the course of describing his travels in mainland Greece in thesecond century AD, Pausanias explicitly and implicitly reveals manyof his attitudes and preferences towards the past and the presentwhich governed, and arose from, those travels. In this book, Iconsider how Pausanias approached and carried out the task he hadset himself. The major part of the study concerns his attitudes to theRomans in Greece, but his attitudes to the past are also considered,and it is a central tenet that Pausanias' examination of the present isindistinguishable from that of the past, indeed that the former wasshaped to a significant extent by the latter. Pausanias himself is thestarting point of this study: it is not a study of Greece and Rome, norof provincial attitudes, Roman buildings, or individual emperors. Itwould not be possible (even if it were my intention) to look at all thatthe Romans built or dedicated in Greece nor at their pervasiveimpact on life in the province of Achaia.1

There have been several full-scale commentaries since the pioneering(and still, in some respects, unsurpassed) work of Sir James Frazer.The ever-growing wealth of archaeological evidence (mostly confirmingthe value of Pausanias) increasingly renders the compilation of acomprehensive commentary an impractically burdensome task. Intandem, there have been many articles and monographs on aspects ofPausanias, including several in recent years, of which that byChristian Habicht is the broadest in scope.2 That, like this, is apersonal view; it is hard to see how it could be otherwise, for Pausaniasis an author who provokes a response, to whom it is hard to remainindifferent.

1 Following modern standard usage, 'Achaia' refers to the Roman province, 'Achaea' to anarea of the northern Peloponnese (cf. Alcock (1993) 233 n.17).

2 E.g. Bultrighini (1990), Bearzot (1992), Eisner (1992), (1994), Habicht (1985).

2 Introduction

As modern readers, we may approach him as an Ur-Baedeker,3 oruse his work as an archaeological handbook for excavations, and wemay reproach him for not discussing what we would like him todiscuss. Specialists in history, literature and archaeology have foundin him much to stimulate and infuriate alike. But these strands inPausanias' work are inseparable, and he cannot fully be understoodwithout consideration of his background, of the regions about whichhe wrote and in which he was brought up, and of the context, literary,historical and political, of his life and writings. Much has been writtenon imperial Greek literary attitudes to Rome, and how they arereflected in, for example, Aelius Aristides or Lucian (notably in JonasPalm's survey, which includes what is still by some way the mostdetailed consideration of Pausanias' attitudes towards Rome, albeitonly twelve pages in length).4 But we must meet him on his ownterritory, and that is the Greece and Asia Minor of the second centuryAD. It is the territory of the Roman province of Achaia, or rather apart of that province, that he guides us through, but his origin in AsiaMinor provides a constant backdrop to his writings.

Pausanias' work is by far our best surviving example ofaperiegesis,a genre of descriptive writing which is mostly lost. The fact of thepreservation of Pausanias' text may have caused its importance to beexaggerated: one index of that importance is its accuracy, which canbe continually re-assessed as more archaeological discoveries occur.But it is not the only measure, and if a series of other comparabletexts had been preserved, they might have proved equally importanteven if in different ways. The purpose of this book is not to assessPausanias' accuracy - not, that is, to create another archaeologicalor historical commentary - but to examine his working methods, thecultural background against which he wrote, and the attitudesapparent in his work. The particular focus is on Pausanias' personalattitudes: they are personal because he made them so, by writing inthe first person, by laying great stress on autopsy, by frequentlyweighing arguments, and by giving reasons for preferring one viewor another. In the same way, he not uncommonly expresses his own3 There has long been a divergence between those seeing him as an ancient Baedeker and those

who are not content with this neat (but surely erroneous) categorization; refs in Eisner (1992)6 n.13, but he is wrong to say that only Veyne (1988) 3, 101, 'openly contests' this view (cf.Alcock (1993) 174): those who previously did so include Robert (1909); Robinson (191 o) 213,(1944) 166; Strid (1976) 11; now also Dihle (1989) 260, (1994) 249.

4 Palm (1959) 63-74 (interestingly, more space than he devotes to most other writers). Forte(1972) 418-27, the only other attempt, is much more superficial.

Introduction 3

opinion, or his uncertainty as to the truth of a particular story orascription.

There are two inextricably linked elements to this study: in chapter2, I examine Pausanias' attitude to antiquities, his consideration ofthe pre-Roman period in Greece, the terminology he uses, and howhis preoccupations are reflected in his choice of which objects,buildings, and cults to describe. In chapters 3 to 6, I look at hisattitudes to the events, personalities and art of the Roman periodfrom Mummius to Pausanias' own time. While these elements aredistinct, they are also complementary: both are structured in terms ofindividuals, respectively artistic and political, rather than in terms ofevents. But while the examination of the Roman period is structuredin terms of rulers and their actions, with a chapter on benefactors, thepre-Roman period (particularly before the Persian wars) is examinedthrough the personalities and genealogies of artists, and the sequenceof artistic developments associated with them. This structure reflectsPausanias' own methods: as he makes a consistent attempt todistinguish one period from another, so does this book, throughsetting the art, architecture and cults which Pausanias documentedagainst the differing contexts of their own times.

Chapters 3 to 5 consider an aspect of Pausanias' work hitherto notadequately studied, namely his writings on, and attitudes towards,the rulers of Roman Greece from Mummius to Marcus Aurelius.Mummius' destruction of Corinth in 146 BG was by any reckoning acrucial event in the history of Roman Greece, and thus Pausaniasregards it; his writings on the history of the Hellenistic period to 146BG have recently been examined in detail by Cinzia Bearzot5 in avaluable study which explains much of the background to the periodwith which I am concerned. I examine Pausanias' attitudes to theinfluential figures of this period - Mummius, Sulla, Julius Caesar,and the emperors whom he mentions - through his references to theiractivities in Greece, and how they reveal Roman attitudes to the sitesand objects of Greece. And I consider what we can learn of Pausanias'view of the very institutions of the Republic and the Empirethemselves. A brief chapter considers the few private benefactorswhom Pausanias mentions, most notably the sophist Herodes Atticus.

Throughout, Pausanias' account is examined in conjunction withother literary sources and with the archaeological record, in order to

5 Bearzot (1992). Also useful on this period is Palm (1959) 63-5.

3

4 Introduction

consider those works which he cites, and those which he does not butwhich are known from other sources, since the omissions in Pausaniascan be as significant as the inclusions in illuminating his workingmethod, and above all his individuality and personality. It is hopedthat in this way a coherent view of what is distinctively Pausanian willemerge.

It is a truism in Pausanias studies that he is less interested in thepresent than in the past, and this study will not disturb that view. Butit will argue that the imbalance is considerably less than has generallybeen perceived. In fact, although Pausanias has comparatively littleto say of most emperors, as of most Republican leaders, he has muchmore to say than has been hitherto acknowledged. A fuller under-standing of Pausanias' methods of narration and description, and ofhis own attitudes, seen in comparison and contrast with those of otherwriters, will lead to a broader understanding of the way the RomanEmpire was viewed by some of its subjects, and of the attitudes of theRomans to their own art and institutions as well as to those of theirpredecessors.

Two related issues are relevant here: perceptions of the emperorscurrent in Greece and Asia Minor, particularly after their deaths; andthe role of imperial benefactions and patronage in building in theprovinces.

While these issues will be repeatedly addressed in chapters 3 to 5,an illustration of how Pausanias' narrative can give rise to the questionof contemporary perceptions of the emperor may usefully be givenhere. During his tour of Corinth, Pausanias says that 'Augustus wasemperor of Rome after Caesar, the founder of the present city ofCorinth' (2.3.1). It seems remarkable that he had to introduce Augustusand spell out his place in the sequence of Roman rulers. The inferencethat Augustus was somehow unfamiliar to Pausanias' intended readersmay seem highly improbable, however logically it may appear tofollow. The phrasing may simply be intended to stress Caesar's role asthe founder of Corinth. But it may indicate exactly such unfamiliarity,or perhaps that such popular perceptions of Augustus as there wereamong the people Pausanias was writing for effectively constitutedfolk-history by his day. In that case, Pausanias may have felt that hehad to spell out exactly who Augustus was as well as why he wasrelevant to that particular part of his description. The remoteness intime of Augustus would have been an important factor in formingperceptions of him in Pausanias' day, some 150 years later.

Introduction 5

The issue of Pausanias' readership is discussed in more detail later,but here it may be noted that if Pausanias sees himself as, in effect,educating his readers, we may assume that they do not consistexclusively of a highly educated elite.

Arising from the question of what were the contemporary perceptionsof Augustus is the further question of how those perceptions could bekept alive. The imperial cult is one possibility, and it will recurthroughout this study.6 Another is straightforward historical orbiographical writing, the latter including the dissemination ofinformation in such forms as the copies of the Res Gestae. The popularaccessibility of the copy at Ankyra (see below, p. 28-9) suggests thatsuch information would have been available to Pausanias and to hisreaders; whether either took advantage of such availability cannot beknown. A third means of maintaining the profile of the emperor in theprovinces consisted of the physical reminders of his reign scatteredround Greece and Asia Minor, from which a traveller and recorderlike Pausanias himself would have been able to glean a fairlycomprehensive picture.

Here the second reference in Pausanias to Augustus is instructive:at the Argive Heraion, among later imperial offerings, he says that'before the entrance stand statues of women who have been priestessesof Hera, and statues of heroes, including Orestes; for they say that thestatue which the inscription declares to be the emperor Augustus isreally Orestes' (2.17.3). It is interesting that the locals know enoughto be able to deny that this statue is a portrait of Augustus; and thatPausanias agrees with them. This, of course, does not mean that theywouldknow a. statue of Augustus if they saw one: it may mean no morethan that they would know an emperor from a hero, irrespective ofidentity (this passage is discussed further on p. 126 below).

Pausanias' perceptions of Augustus and the other emperors whomhe discusses form a substantial part of this book; but they need to beset against the role of the emperor in this period, and particularly therole of the emperor in relation to the provinces. In other words, whilethere is a concentration on Pausanias as a Greek from Asia Minor inthe Roman system, attention is also given to how Rome views, anddeals with, Greece and the Greeks.

A fundamental, but perhaps easily overlooked, issue is that of howactive any emperor was, how personal his involvement, and how far6 Although imperial cults generally ended with the death of the relevant emperor, some aspects

of the worship of Augustus continued (Price (1984a) 61).

6 Introduction

he impinged on his subjects. As Fergus Millar has shown, theemperor's role was essentially to respond to petitions from hissubjects, rather than to take the initiative himself.7 In general, theemperor would have undertaken minimal intervention in the affairsof the provinces; this is true also of the governor. Thus emperorswould not have had a 'Greek policy' — apart from Hadrian, theexceptional nature and extent of whose interest in Greece will becomeapparent in the course of this book - and the personal involvement ofthe emperor in daily life and in provincial building programmeswould have been limited.8

Most imperial benefactions in the provinces took the form ofresponses to initiatives from local donors, and owed most to themotivations of such donors, who would wish to associate their giftswith the ruling emperor for reasons such as the advancement of theirown careers. In the case of buildings put up at public expense, fromthe late first century AD, it became standard practice that a licencefrom the emperor had to be issued before they could be erected.9 Thisalso should not be taken to imply that the emperor initiated suchbuildings.

The buildings which Pausanias mentions in connection with eachof the emperors - and those which he does not, but which are knownfrom other sources - form an important part of this book. But they areseen alongside the wider view Pausanias gives us of each emperor.The greater part of this book is structured around the biographicalaspect of Pausanias' writings, looking at the key Roman figures hementions and their activities as they affected Greece. However, thecomparison with the biographical writings of Suetonius and Plutarchis in fact minimal. Biography, with a particular emphasis oncharacter, was their main purpose, whereas the biographicalinformation that Pausanias gives us is mostly incidental, arisingnaturally from his description or discussion of particular monumentsor buildings. Indeed, occasions will be remarked on where heapparently deliberately passes over an opportunity to comment on anindividual's actions or character. Whether this gives his accountgreater objectivity, even reliability, than those of Suetonius orPlutarch, is better assessed as each example occurs, but the selectivityof his remarks requires examination of the criteria which he employsin making them.

7 Millar (1977). 8 Millar (1977), (1987); Mitchell (1987b).9 Garnsey and Sailer (1987) 37.

Introduction 7

The starting point and linking thread of this study is the commonlyexpressed belief that Pausanias writes with disdain for modern art andbuildings, and prefers 'old masters'. It will be argued that this is asimplification and that he does not have a universal disdain for thingsmodern, but a layered, more subtle approach, which affects what hechooses to refer to, and how he does so. Through such references wecan gain an understanding of the varied opinions he held of each ofthe individual Romans he discusses, and an overall picture of how heregards Rome as a whole and how he contrasts it with the past.

As a complementary process must be admitted the perceptions ofGreece, particularly of the Classical period, commonly held inPausanias' day. How far it can be said that Rome encouraged respect,perhaps an exaggerated respect, for the past of Greece will becomeapparent, but at the least, Pausanias' own views must be seen againstthe background of those most in evidence in other sources of theperiod. Here the comparative (and in some cases actual) contem-poraneity of the events and personalities Pausanias was treatingallowed, almost necessitated, a greater stress on individuality. In this,as in many central aspects, his writing must be seen as a product of itsage, and of his position as a native of Asia Minor under the RomanEmpire

While Pausanias' uniqueness as a surviving source in itself guaranteeshis continuing importance, he should not be treated as an isolatedphenomenon: his cultural and historical background must constantlybe borne in mind when reading his work. This theme recursthroughout the following chapters, but here two fundamental pointsmay briefly be noted. First, Pausanias grew up and worked in a worldshaped by the Romans, and by Hadrian in particular. Secondly, hewas from Asia Minor, not mainland Greece, which was the subject ofhis travels and writings. These factors have central implications forhis writing, and must be examined in detail if his world and hisattitude to it are to be comprehensible. The period he lived in, and hisgeographical origin, were crucial in forming his attitudes by providinghim with an education of a particular kind, with an interest intravelling to Greece, and with the pervasive influence of the RomanEmpire. This is not to suggest educational determinism since, as Ishall argue, I believe that although Pausanias had the same type ofeducation as his contemporaries, his writing differed from theirs inseveral important respects.

In the following sections, these themes will be examined as a means

8 Introduction

of setting the scene for detailed consideration of Pausanias' approachesto pre-Roman as well as Roman Greece, and to the notableindividuals of the Roman Republic and early Empire.

ORIGINS AND BACKGROUND

Pausanias' origins and background will be examined under threeclosely related headings: (i) Pausanias and his work, (ii) historicalbackground, (iii) cultural background.

(i) Pausanias and his work

The few facts and inferences that can be gleaned about Pausanias' lifehave been gathered by several scholars.10 The picture of his work thatis now accepted (and is followed here) is that we have it complete inten books, written between the 130s and c. AD I 75-80. This conclusionis primarily inferred from Pausanias' own work, which includes hintsabout the chronology as well as the geography of his travels, many ofthem in the form of cross-references between books.

There may also be inferred from Pausanias' writings what isarguably the most significant fact for understanding him and hiswork, namely that he was a native of Asia Minor (in all probabilityLydia, and specifically Magnesia ad Sipylum), and not mainlandGreece.11 On his travels in mainland Greece he was, in ChristianJacob's phrase, 'un xenos venu d'ailleurs'.12 Pausanias was enabled byhis origins to distance himself both from Rome and from mainlandGreece itself, and it is in this light that his approach to Greece, ancientand modern, should be seen.13

Pausanias' writings must also be set against his objectives, raisingthe question of what exactly he set out to encompass: the key here ishis stated intention to cover panta ta hellenika (1.26.4). Some difficulty

10 Habicht (1985) 8-19; Regenbogen (1956) 1012-3; Frazer i.xv-xxii.11 Frazer 1.xix; Habicht (1985) 13-17 with refs, including a response to Diller (1955) 270, who

sees Lydia only as Pausanias' residence at the time he wrote; Musti (1987) xix; Jacob(1980-1) 44.

12 Jacob (1980-1) 44; similarly, Susan Walker classes Pausanias among 'foreign visitors'(Walker (1984) 252). These sentiments find ready parallels in the works cited in the previousnote.

13 I disagree with John Eisner's view of Pausanias as exceptional because he 'chose to travel inand write about his own native land? (Eisner (1992) 7, his italics); the passage that Eisner cites insupport of this position (9.36.5) gives no hint that Pausanias thought of mainland Greece ashis home. Also 'his own land1 (Eisner (1992) 9, cf. 28); 'his homeland' (Eisner (1994) 244).

Introduction 9

has been felt here by Frazer and Habicht, both of whom give morethan a simple rendering of this expression: Frazer translates it as 'thewhole of Greece, or, more literally, all things Greek', and Habichtrepeats Frazer's translation, adding '"all the Greek matters" wouldbe closer to the actual wording'.14 Both the phrasing and the contextmake it clear that Pausanias is 'thinking aloud' and hurrying to end ahistorical digression in order to continue the task he has set himself.That task was to write about 'the whole of Greece'; as Habicht rightlyconcludes, 'Pausanias clearly intended to describe Greece in itsentirety'.15 This view finds further support in Herodotos 1.5.3-4, thephrasing of which is closely followed by Pausanias.16 Such deliberateimitation constitutes a demonstration of Pausanias' own learning; theallusion would not have escaped his readers, nor would Pausaniashave wished it to. But this is not just empty mimicry, since Pausaniasis following Herodotos also in making a programmatic statement atan early stage in his work.

Thus Pausanias intended to describe the whole of Greece, althoughit is clear that he did not in fact accomplish this objective.17 Theintended scope of Pausanias' work is remarkable not so much per se -his older contemporary Dionysios the Periegete, for example, sethimself to write about the entire inhabited world (see below, p. 23n.57) - as for the immense detail that he combines with that scope.Much of this detail derives from his constant emphasis on the local,the differences between the various parts of Greece, their practicesand traditions. The use of local elements is central to Pausanias'working method: the use of local myths, the interest in and recordingof local cults, the stress on local identifications of statues and sculptors,and the frequent citations of written sources, local informants andguides (all covered by the word exegetai),18 all bear witness to adetermination on Pausanias' part to ascertain what lies at the heart ofthe communities he is visiting.19

14 Frazer i.xxv; Habicht (1985) 6. Eisner offers a variety of meanings, not all of which arecompatible with the Greek (Eisner (1992) 5, 11,14, 22; (1994) 245, 252; cf. Alcock (1993) 120).

15 Habicht (1985) 6; also, p. 3: 'the whole of Greece is his topic'; Frazer's'he professes to describethe whole of Greece . . .' (i.xxv) is misleading, as Pausanias is merely giving an earnest ofintent. There are other occasions when Pausanias tells us he must end a digression and returnto his main theme (e.g. 1.4.6). 16 I thank Michael Trapp for pointing this out to me.

17 On what Pausanias does and does not cover, Habicht (1985) 4—5.18 Frazer 1.lxxvi-vii, with ancient references; Jacob (1980-1) 46-8; Veyne (1988) 5, 132-3. As

an example of Pausanias' use of local informants for an area's history and tradition, Roy (1968).19 Eisner's view that Pausanias 'pays no attention to . . . local color' is surely untenable (Eisner

(1991) 32).

i o Introduction

Pausanias' prime interest was in the city and its sanctuaries,20 avery specific type of site at which one would expect to findcorrespondingly specific types of art, communal symbols of statereligion and therefore of state identity. At least part of Pausanias'interest in sanctuaries is therefore derived from his evident concernwith what constitutes a city. Hence his interest in symbols ofcommunity identity, which inevitably involved antiquity andconcentrated particularly on sanctuaries, which were the focus of thecommunity par excellence. If the citizens of a town were interested intheir community's history, it would be to the sanctuary that theywould go to see the manifestations of that history. Antiquity legitimizesa site, and in dealing with sanctuaries Pausanias would inevitably bedealing with antiquities and their significance.

Thus Pausanias' interest in religious matters is in part an inescapableconsequence of his interest in civic identity and its manifestations,since it is within cult buildings (and especially temples) that so manysuch symbols were stored. This does not, however, result in a merecatalogue of cult buildings: other structures in sanctuaries and civiccentres which had little or no religious function are also described,perhaps for their importance in communicating civic identity,government and history (the Stoa Poikile in the Athenian Agora is acase in point, with its paintings of the battle of Marathon). It wouldtherefore be unwise to deduce from the number of shrines describedthat Pausanias' prime interest was in religion; equally, however, it isnecessary to be sensitive to the complex of personal, religious andcultural interests which might have been combined with suchhistorical concerns to determine the choice of sites and monumentsand the manner of their description.

In view of the arguments adduced in the preceding paragraphs, Iam reluctant to see Pausanias as a pilgrim.21 In addition, pilgrimageimplies a journey by a devotee in pursuance of a primarily religiousobjective, whereas Pausanias visits the shrines of a multitude of godsand heroes, certainly with a considerable interest in religion but notwith one single identifiable religious objective, nor as a devotee of somany deities. Indeed, the extent of the complementary interest innon-religious matters marks Pausanias out as pepaideumenos ratherthan pilgrim. The breadth of Pausanias' objectives is reflected in -20 Snodgrass (1987) 77.21 Contra Eisner (1992), esp. p. 20 seeing 'the whole of Pausanias' account as a pilgrimage'; also,

Hornblower (1994b) 51 n. 130.

Introduction 11

perhaps the cause of- the fact that Pausanias looked at whateverinterested him, and visited wherever interested him.22

It is also frequently apparent that Pausanias is very interested inthe local aspects of what he saw, including many cults. Preciselybecause these were particular to their own specific area, a travellerlike Pausanias could not have immediately entered into them exceptin his own home city where the practices would have been familiarones. Therefore, even if he had been a mainland Greek, there wouldin many places have been an aspect of what he saw that was alien.23

Thus the community and what lies at its heart forms the core of hissearch: he is not simply recording what he sees, but considering it incontext, and that means learning what he can of the political andreligious history of the particular area he is writing about. It is morethan likely that the strongly local element beneath (but not farbeneath) the Roman face of the Asia Minor in which he was broughtup was in fact primarily formative on his own emphasis on localityand the local. And in such local historical investigation, he isfollowing an established tradition (described approvingly by, forexample, Dionysios of Halikarnassos, On Thucydides 5, who givesmany examples of local historians).24

If this Roman aspect began as a veneer, it was deeper and morepervasive by Pausanias' own day, having been strengthened byHadrian, and its effects were everywhere visible. This is not a case of asimple opposition of'Greek' and 'Roman', nor is it a pattern that ishard to parallel in other Roman provinces. As Martin Millett has saidin another context: 'we must thus see Romanization as a process ofdialectical change, rather than the influence of one "pure" culture22 Although Eisner's view, expressed apropos of mediaeval pilgrims, that 'the typical pilgrim

tended to pass through the world without noticing it - that, in a sense, was the premise of thepilgrimage' (Eisner (1991) 41) is overstated, it does make the important point of the pilgrim'snarrowness of focus, and that cannot be claimed of Pausanias.

23 On Pausanias' religious attitudes, Habicht (1985) 23, 151—9. His devotion to Asklepios hasbeen argued for by Levi ((1971) 2.2), even to the extent of calling him a doctor, althoughHabicht has neatly refuted that suggestion, while agreeing that he does show signs ofdevotion to Asklepios (Habicht (1985) 9 n.48). The cult of Asklepios had a considerablerevival in Pausanias' time and was closely bound up with the sophistic movement, not least inAsia Minor and specifically Pergamon, the home of his contemporary, Galen, and the citywhere Aelius Aristides was treated, bequeathing us a valuable account of his experiences; italso saw the emergence of the iatrosophists 'who gave displays of rhetoric on medical subjects'(Jones (1978) 74; Bowersock (1969) 19, 59-75). On the rites of the Asklepieia in the Greekand Roman periods, Graf (1992). For the sources, Edelstein and Edelstein (1945), esp.2.251-5 on the Roman period. On Pausanias' almost certain initiation into the Eleusinianmysteries, see below, p. 99. That Pausanias is a religious man is clear; that he is a pilgrim is not.

24 Further, Bowie (1974) 184-8.

12 Introduction

upon others'.25 To seek out the pre-Roman world in addition was aharder task; and it was one which Pausanias set himself also. He keptan open mind, looking at both ancient and modern, but the stress onthe local adds an extra dimension to the study of the contemporary,since it was his entree to the less obvious, to the recorded as well as thestill practised which he could observe for himself. Pausanias' identityas a Greek from Asia Minor, not a mainland Greek, is, then, essentialto understanding his approach to the objects and sites he describes inwhat is, for him, Greece but not home.

(ii) Historical background

The extent and prosperity of the eastern Roman Empire in Pausanias'lifetime and the immediately preceding period meant that he wouldhave been brought up with a daily awareness of Roman imperialbuildings and practices, laws, tax regulations, magistracies, gamesand cults. In short, the world he inhabited was one most recentlyshaped by the Romans, and in particular by Hadrian, whose reignsaw more building in the provinces than that of any other emperor.Even though the period of Pausanias' maturity, of at least themajority of his travels, was after Hadrian,26 his contemporaneity withHadrian's later life would have enhanced his awareness of theemperor's buildings (as is clear from the discussion of Hadrian inchapter 5).

An important cultural and political development of the period wasHadrian's creation of the Panhellenion, an organization of cities ofGreece and Asia Minor (and a few in North Africa) inaugurated inAthens in AD 131/2.27 Hadrian's impact on mainland Greece isattested by Pausanias himself, not least in the well-known phrase thatthe Megarians 'were the only Greek people whom even the emperorHadrian could not make to thrive' (1.36.3). While the Megarians hadlong been regarded as of meagre significance (e.g. Callimachus,Epigrams 25 Pfeiffer28), Hadrian's apparent lapse is not presented as a

25 Millett (1990) 1.26 On the evidence for placing Pausanias' date of birth AD c.115, and the likely dates of his

travels, Habicht (1985) 10-12; also, Frazer i.xv-xviii. Pausanias' awareness of the imperialcult would have been fostered not least by its presence at Magnesia ad Sipylum, but also bythe cult in many other cities in western Asia Minor (Price (1984a) xxiv-v, maps iv-v).

27 Spawforth and Walker (1985, 1986); Spawforth (forthcoming); Follett (1976) 125-35. ThePanhellenion is not mentioned by Habicht or Eisner. For a summary of its activities,Spawforth and Walker (1985) 82-4, 103. 28 I thank Roland Mayer for this reference.

Introduction 13

topos, nor as a slight on him since the reason Pausanias gives for theMegarians' situation is their impious murder of the herald An-themokritos. In other words, the Megarians' plight was of their ownmaking, and Hadrian brought prosperity to all the Greeks as far as hecould.

Although Pausanias does not make explicit reference to thePanhellenion, its creation is of inestimable significance for understandingHadrian's greater plan for Greece and the East. By its foundation, hecreated a network which linked many cities in Greece and AsiaMinor. It gave Athens the pivotal role as the centre to which all othercities looked,29 but also brought Asia Minor a much more active andintegrated role in the eastern Roman Empire. It is against thebackground of the creation of the Panhellenion that Pausanias wrote,and his work, indeed his world, must have been shaped to a notableextent by it and, arguably, for it (below, pp. 31-6, on Pausanias'possible readership). That it had an impact far inland into AsiaMinor is attested by, for example, the Hadrianic bridge built atAizanoi in Phrygia. A distribution map of the membership of thePanhellenion shows how familiar it would have been in Pausanias'home area — most notably through the membership of Lydian Sardis— even though there is no evidence for the membership of, or anassociation with, the Panhellenion of his probable home town ofMagnesia ad Sipylum.30 This omission, like the more striking ones ofEphesos, Pergamon and Smyrna, 'perhaps reflects no more than thearbitrary character of the evidence for the Panhellenion'.31 In fact,the interest in antiquarianism in the period among the Ephesians,Pergamenes and Smyrnaians is attested, and can be related to thestimulus of the Panhellenion.32 There are other gaps in our knowledgeof the Panhellenion, such as our uncertainty over the selection criteriafor membership;33 nonetheless, the general significance of thePanhellenion, and of the milieu it created, for someone of Pausanias'date and geographical origin is clear, and it will be returned to onseveral occasions in the following pages.29 Pace Bowie (1974) 197, 'Athens was of no political importance whatever.'30 For distribution maps of the member states of the Panhellenion, Spawforth and Walker

(1985) 80, and Alcock (1993) 167. For Aizanoi, most recently Worrle (1992); also, Levick (1988).31 Spawforth and Walker (1985) 81.32 Spawforth and Walker (1986) 92-4, referring, inter alia, to 'a benevolent interest in old

Greece's most historic cities among members of the Ephesian elite in the wake of thePanhellenion's foundation'; and to the works of the Pergamene Charax 'articulating thesame pre-occupation with the local traditions of Greek cities as can be found in the milieu ofthe Panhellenion'. Cf. Alcock (1993) 17. 33 Spawforth and Walker (1985) 82.

14 Introduction

(in) Cultural background

Among the many factors which made up the cultural background ofthe period, the most pertinent are those with which the highlyeducated men of the period, such as Pausanias, would be mostfamiliar. The most relevant in the present context is the interest in,and admiration for, the past, specifically the fifth and fourth centuriesBG. Such archaism will be examined in greater detail below, but onephenomenon which owes much to it has already been discussed,namely the Panhellenion, whose political scope and influence wereoutlined in the previous paragraphs. Hadrian, in creating thePanhellenion and centring it on Athens, was associating himself withthe core of old Greece, his Rome with the high point of ClassicalAthens, and himself with the founder of Athens, Theseus. In hisemphasis on the past, an idealizing concentration on what was seen asthe greater glory of Greece, Hadrian was acting in accordance withthe established and broader cultural trends of the period. It is againstthe background of this archaism that Pausanias must be seen.

Another central cultural trend of the time is the popularity oforatorical performance. Closely related is the phenomenon of thesophist, the teacher of rhetoric 'whose attainment was of such a levelas to give public performances'.34 The emergence of the sophist as 'avirtuoso rhetor with a big public reputation'35 was the most distinctivecontribution of the movement known as the Second Sophistic. Thename is that given by Philostratos, who dated the movement fromAeschines in the fourth century BG to the end of the early third centuryAD (VS 481), although its effective starting point is the third quarter ofthe first century AD with Niketes of Smyrna (VS 511 — 12) ,36 It is in thelatter, more restricted but more commonly employed, sense that thephrase is used here.

The sophists were a conspicuous but limited category ofpepaideumenoi,the educated men of the period trained in rhetoric and in the cultureof the Greek past. For the sophists, as for the other pepaideumenoi,reference to the past, especially to Classical Athens, was central. Thesophists' knowledge of the past was a matter for rhetorical display -and it could be, and often was, feigned (e.g. Lucian, Rhetorum Praeceptor

34 Bowie (1974) 169.35 Bowersock (1969) 13; on 'Performers and occasions', Russell (1983) 74-86.36 E.g. Bowersock (1985), esp. 655-6 on the date; also, Anderson (1993), (1990); Bowie (1974),

(1982); Bowersock (1969); Lippold (1956).

Introduction 15

18). To simplify a complex subject, two types of rhetorical productionmay briefly be characterized, namely declamation and epideictic.

Declamation, often preceded by a less formal discourse, could beeither a symbouleutic speech set in a (sometimes fictitious) historicalcontext (known in Latin as a suasoria), or a forensic presentation ofone or both sides of an often improbable judicial case (controversia).The suasoriae gave advice to well-known people of the Roman past,addressing questions such as what Hannibal should do at Cannae, orwhether Sulla should retire from public life (Juvenal 7.162-4, 1.6,respectively); or they advise familiar figures from the Greek past, suchas Perikles or Demosthenes, and as late as Alexander (who is, forexample, advised on whether to cross the Ocean, Seneca, Suas. 1). Butadvice is not offered to Greek figures later than Alexander.

Epideictic speeches were designed to be given at festivals andfunerals, and could praise people or lament their deaths; or theirsubject might be institutions, buildings, or cities, usually contemporary,hence they might well make reference to Rome.

The sophists' speeches were not required to contain historicallyaccurate information, but to be credible, and were subject toelaboration, the more skilful the more applauded. The very languagethey used was Atticizing, harking back to that of Classical Athens, inparticular the prose of the fifth and fourth centuries used by the greatorators. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that most of the culturalelite, including the Julio-Claudian and Antonine emperors, hadattended rhetorical schools. The influence of these schools is mostevident on Hadrian, who founded his own such school in Athens(Aurelius Victor, de Caesaribus 14.1.3), and from whom so much of theemphasis on the past of Greece stemmed.

That Pausanias was a product of these trends is undeniable: he wascertainly one of the pepaideumenoi but, in the absence of evidence thathe taught rhetoric, we cannot call him a sophist. However, I suggestthat, while the cultural climate equipped him with the education andthe motivation to undertake his travels and his writing, he departedfrom some of the norms of his contemporaries to produce afundamentally different work. Assessment of this claim requires closerexamination of the issues raised, and of a variety of aspects ofPausanias' work in the light of them, concentrating on his sources,predecessors and contemporaries, and the importance of autopsy inhis work; his approach to the archaizing trends of the period; hislanguage; and his intended readership.

16 Introduction

(a) Sources, predecessors, contemporaries, autopsyPausanias' purpose and approach are markedly different from thoseof other surviving ancient writers on comparable subjects. Our mostinformative sources, such as Cicero, Dio Chrysostom, Quintilian,Pliny, Lucian, and Aelius Aristides, were neither primarily interestedin art per se nor in travelling for the purpose of seeing art and itscontext.37 In essence, basing their work largely on received traditions,they (particularly Pliny) mainly give lists of artists and works, or usedescriptions of art and buildings as a means to an end, not as ends inthemselves. Thus Cicero uses art to reinforce the oratorical or legalpoints he is making; Dio Chrysostom writes as an orator andphilosopher, Quintilian as a rhetorician; Pliny writes about marblesculptures as an offshoot of his interest in geology, and bronzethrough his interest in metallurgy,38 and he has an obvious interest inthe received biographies which he details; and authors such as Lucianand Aelius Aristides write according to the conventions of the SecondSophistic, the movement of which they are prime exemplars, using artas a means to their end of impressing their audience with their abilityto produce elaborate descriptions, or ekphraseis (see below, pp. 20, 27).

Pausanias differs fundamentally from these traditions in threeparticular respects: first, his concern is with artistic objects in thewidest sense, including sculptures, buildings, paintings and otherworks. Indeed, it is striking for modern scholars, who inhabit a worldwhere Greek paintings and wooden objects have not survived inquantity, to note that Pausanias' description of the paintings in theLesche of the Knidians at Delphi (10.25.1 -31.12) takes up nearly onethird of his description of the Apollo sanctuary, and that hisdescription of the chest of Kypselos in the temple of Hera at Olympia(5.17.5-19.10) is as long as that of the temple of Zeus, including thelavish detailing of Pheidias' cult statue. Secondly, Pausanias wasclearly concerned with context, with sites, their history and theirhistorical topography as well as with objects, with seeing the totalityand juxtaposition of objects at a particular site rather than simplyisolated objects in collections. Thirdly, and centrally to the two aimsalready outlined, although he, like the other writers mentioned, usedsecondary sources and received traditions, he applied personal

37 On art criticism and art history in antiquity in general, Pollitt (1974) 9-84, includingsections on Pliny (73-81) and Quintilian and Cicero (81-4). On Pliny, Jex-Blake and Sellers(1896) introduction, esp. xiii-xiv, xlvi-vii. On Lucian, Jones, (1986); Delz (1950), withreviews by Oliver (1951) and Hopper (1952). 38 Jex-Blake and Sellers (1896) i.

Introduction 17

observation to the objects he describes and, as will become apparentin this discussion, he regarded this autopsy as an essential and integralpart of his approach to his chosen task. Indeed, on occasion he tells uswhen he has not seen an object or monument (e.g. 1.38.2, 8.10.2);while this practice finds a parallel in Herodotos (1.183.3), whomPausanias has already been seen to imitate, this is no reason to doubtthe autopsy either of Pausanias or of Herodotos himself.39

Autopsy is, in my view, the single most distinctive feature inPausanias' work, and it is therefore important to establish that it is afundamental underlying principle. The overwhelming strength of thearchaeological evidence has long indicated that this is so; and the factthat Pausanias' style incorporates many literary manners and allusionsdoes not indicate that he is guilty of fabrication: rather, it constitutesfurther evidence that in many respects he is a man of his age.Reference has already been made, and will again be, to writtensources, and there is no doubt that Pausanias made use of suchsources, knowledge of which would be expected of someone of hisbackground. Included in such writings may well have been cataloguesand descriptions of paintings and statues, of temples and theircontents, as well as the biographies of painters and sculptors familiarfrom surviving works, particularly Pliny. It is, therefore, possible toargue an extreme view that Pausanias' work was essentially derivative,a purely literary exercise. On this theory, he would have visited few, ifany, of the sites he describes.

However, I suggest that Pausanias' autopsy is clear, not only fromthe exceptional detail of his descriptions, but also because visitingGreece was an integral part of his education, and it would beremarkable if a man of his background did not visit Greece. If parts ofPausanias' account match - or, indeed, differ from - survivingaccounts of sites, buildings or statues, we should not be surprised, nortake this as an indication that he did not in fact see what he claims tohave seen. Perhaps an analogy may serve: a description written by amodern visitor to Olympia museum (for example), with an intelligentand informed interest in the art and architecture of ancient Greece,will in all likelihood bear close resemblance to the published guides to

39 Habicht (1985) 142. On the critical tradition regarding Pausanias' autopsy, most notablyWilamowitz' disbelief, Habicht (1985) esp. 165-75; Frazer i.lxvi-xcvi, esp. lxxiv-lxxxii.Jacoby (1944) is a late example of this tradition, stigmatizing Pausanias' description of theKerameikos and written, significantly, without knowledge of the first four of the GermanKerameikos volumes which were appearing around this time (1939-43)-

18 Introduction

the museum. However, the order of the descriptions may differ, thedisplays may have been altered between the differing dates of theguides, and between their publication and the time of our putativevisitor's report. Equally, our author may make mistakes: some may bemisunderstandings, some may be errors committed in transcribingnotes at a distance (both chronologically and geographically) fromhis visit. Yet that is no indication that he did not see what hedescribed. Likewise, neither discrepancies nor similarities constitutesignificant evidence against the autopsy which Pausanias claims forhimself. To take one such example, Pausanias was presumablyfamiliar with Herodotos' reference (Hdt. 1.25) to a silver bowl on aniron stand dedicated at Delphi by Alyattes; but the fact thatHerodotos mentions the object should not lead us to doubt thatPausanias saw the stand for himself, described its technique, andobserved in person that the bowl was no longer on it (1 o. 16.1; further,below, p. 46).

Another factor is pertinent to an assessment of Pausanias3 autopsy,namely Pausanias as a purveyor of historical fact. He is generallyregarded as mediocre to bad in this respect;40 however, it is not mypurpose to assess or document this, since I am concerned with hisattitudes rather than his accuracy. His recording of history isnecessarily at a different remove from his recording of the objects,temples and cults he observed for himself. It might be said that theinclusion of historical elements in his work is in itself a statement, anexpression of opinion by its selectivity, but I would argue that he isobliged to include a certain level of history by his evident feeling thatit is necessary to give the reader the context of the objects he isdescribing. And on occasion he expresses his views on historicalmatters strongly, as when he takes issue with the popular view of thedevelopment of Athens from Theseus to Peisistratos (1.3.3).41

40 Representative views have been expressed by Pearson (1962), esp. 408, 412; Salmon, takinghis cue from Pearson, refers to 'the romance that passes for Messenian history' (1977) 85 n.8;Larsen calls Pausanias' account of the period from 146 BC to Augustus 'full of mistakes'(Larsen (1938) 306). More favourably, Daux (1975) concerning Pausanias' account of theAmphictyonic League (see below, p. 137); Hejnic (1961) esp. 111-18. Authors of a moreostensibly historical inclination have attracted greater criticism, e.g. 'pride of place amonguntrustworthy literary texts may go to Polybius' generalisation about the Greece of his day'(Garnsey (1988) 66). Also on the historical aspects of Pausanias, Bearzot (1992), Bultrighini(1990), Segre (1927), Ebeling (1913).

41 Habicht says that here 'Pausanias almost sounds like Thucydides' (Habicht (1985) 110); asMichael Trapp points out to me, Pausanias here may well be consciously following theprecedent of Thucydides' disdain for the received opinion on Harmodios and Aristogeiton(Thuc. 1.20).

Introduction 19

Pausanias' writings on history come into a different category fromthe rest, since he cannot have had autopsy of most of the events hedescribes, and probably had autopsy of none. The most likelyconsequence of this is that he is at the mercy of his sources, whetherthey be local guides or ancient writers. In discussing the Messenianwars at the beginning of his most historically oriented book, he givesus an unusually detailed insight into the sources he uses and into hisworking methods by comparing two accounts, that of the CretanRhianos of Bene and that of Myron of Priene (both perhaps of thelater third or early second century BG), and giving his reasons forfollowing the former (4.6.1-5).42 Frazer argues that Pausanias,despite his professions, did in fact follow Myron closely: significantly,Frazer picks out as the decisive factor Pausanias' style in this passage,which he characterizes as 'totally foreign to his usual dry jejunemanner'.43 Whether or not one concurs with this judgement, it isimportant to note its derivation from the difference in style betweenthe historical passages based on secondary sources and the descriptivepassages based on autopsy.44

Habicht has drawn a distinction between passages such as thatdiscussed in the previous paragraph and the briefer references tohistory, concluding that 'except for some long and elaborate digressions(in which he seems to follow closely a single historian), Pausanias doesnot copy any historian's work, but usually writes history frommemory'.45 In the absence of so many of the historical sources thatwould have been available to Pausanias, this theory cannot beproved. However, it finds implicit support in the conclusion drawn inthe previous paragraph, since the great majority of the historicalreferences which Habicht sees as written from memory occur not inthe historical passages, but in the descriptive ones where the history is,if not incidental, at least not central.

A further possibility which may be considered is that Pausaniasfollowed the sophistic practice of his day in embroidering historicalevents which he and, perhaps more importantly, his readers could nothave witnessed. The key was to make the embroidery credible, as it

42 Pearson (1962); Frazer 111.411-12; Veyne (1988) 25, 137 n.38.43 Frazer 111.411. Pearson also believes Pausanias followed Myron.44 Writing of 7.7-17.4 on the history of the Achaean confederation, Ferrary sees many serious

errors of historical fact, attributing most of them either to the deficiencies of Pausanias'source, or to his inaccurate recounting of that source (Ferrary (1988) 200-5). This supportsthe point made, since in writing of art, Pausanias in most cases had the opportunity toobserve for himself rather than rely on secondary sources. 45 Habicht (1985) 98.

20 Introduction

was with the ekphraseis noted above. An ideal opportunity for this sortof verbal display is the sack of Corinth by Mummius: description ofthe sack of a city had long been subject to conventions, varyingaccording to what emotion the speaker wished to provoke in hishearers.46 Such conventions were also central to the progymnasmata orstandard school exercises of the period. But Pausanias' account of thesack of Corinth does not in fact conform to these conventions.47 Theconcentration on effect, so characteristic ofekphrasis, involved in thisinstance bringing to the fore the horrors of a sack; and, although oneline in Pausanias' description might qualify ('most of the peoplefound in [Corinth] were massacred by the Romans, and Mummiussold the women and children', 7.16.8), we do know of comparabletreatment by Republican Rome of the inhabitants of sacked cities(e.g. Aemilius Paullus enslaved 150,000 Epirotes in 167 BC (Plut. Aem.29.3)).48 But even if this line is taken as rhetorical rather thanhistorical, the fact that it is only one line is telling, and there is nothingelse to suggest conformity with the convention.

In his description of the sack of Corinth, therefore, as I shall argue isthe case in other respects, Pausanias does not indulge in the sort ofsophistic embroidery which would have been possible, and probablyexpected in other contexts. That Pausanias could write in this mannerif he wished is clear from his description of the sack of Kallion inPhokis, which is amply laden with gruesome details (10.22.3—7).However, it is an account of an event which occurred in 279 BC, and inwhich the Gauls - barbarians by any ancient standard - wereculpable; the likelihood is that Pausanias believed what he tells us,and that he was drawing on an earlier account,49 rather thanregurgitating a conventional account in the manner of one of theprogymnasmata he had learned at school.

I have attempted to distance Pausanias from the sophists in hisapproach and in his writing, and further arguments will be adduced(below, on archaism, and on readership). But I would suggest that asimilar comparison should be considered with the writers of history,since the genre in which Pausanias is writing is in many respects closerto their work than to that of the sophists, and we do not know enough

46 W e b b (1992) 4 5 . 47 P a u l ( 1 9 8 2 ) .48 'The enslavement of war-prisoners was the main source from which Rome drew its slaves for

most of the middle and late Republic' (Harris (1980) 121-2). On slaves as instrumental inthe introduction of Greek education into Rome, Kaimio (1979) 195, cf. 22.

49 Possible sources are discussed by Frazer v.341.

Introduction 21

about the conventions of the genre of periegesis to know how farrhetorical elaboration was ever considered appropriate to it. Hereover-precise distinctions should be avoided, since poetry, oratory andhistoriography were all seen as aspects of rhetoric: Cicero, forexample, regarded epideictic as including eulogies, descriptions,histories, exhortations and sophistic orations (Orator 37). The aimwas, as A. Woodman has put it, 'to elaborate certain data in such away as to affect or persuade an audience or readership'.50

Within the bracket of historiography a range of stances can befound, from the rhetorical to the sober and restrained. As an exampleof the former, Plutarch writes that 'the most effective historian is hewho, by a vivid representation of emotions and characters, makes hisnarration like a painting' (Mor. 347A). In the same passage, Plutarchtakes Thucydides as the exemplar of this approach, saying admiringlythat he 'is always striving for this vividness (enargeia) in his writing, itis his desire to make the reader a spectator, as it were, and to producevividly in the minds of those who peruse his narrative the emotions ofamazement and consternation which were experienced by those whobeheld them'. At the other end of the scale stands Lucian, whodisdains exactly the rhetorical approach so liked by Plutarch. Forhim, historians should write 'with truthfulness . . . rather than withadulation and a view to the pleasure of present praise' (Hist. Conscr.63). And in his account of a fantastic journey, he is careful to makeclear to the reader in the preface that none of what follows is true (Ver.Hist. 1.4).51

Thus writers of history must be seen in conjunction with thebroader trends of the period. A wide spectrum of approach isapparent, from the overtly rhetorical to the scrupulously accurate.Pausanias stands with the latter: while this will be frequentlyapparent to his readers, one example will serve here to contrast theapproaches to one incident which typify the differences betweenPlutarch and Pausanias. Writing of the killing by Sulla's troops ofAthenians in the Kerameikos, Plutarch devotes forty-two lines to it(Sulla 14.1-5), conjuring up a picture of the sound of trumpets andscreaming, of unknown numbers massacred, of blood flowing throughthe gate and covering the entire suburb. He writes here in the manner

50 Woodman (1988) 100, and in general on these issues. He discusses the Cicero passage at95-8, and gives other sources at e.g. 41-2, 116 n.158, 198.

51 Georgiadou and Larmour (1994), esp. 1449, 1505-6. On enargeia and historiography,Walker (1993); on other aspects of enargeia, Webb (forthcoming).

22 Introduction

of one following his own prescription for historiography just cited.This prescription also recalls the conventions for the description of thesack of a city.

In marked contrast, Pausanias' account of this incident consistsonly of the words 'Sulla shut up his Athenian adversaries in theKerameikos and ordered them to be decimated5 (1.20.6). Thedifference between these two writers could hardly be more starklyapparent, and it shows Pausanias characteristically distancing himselffrom the rhetorical end of the span of historians, as he did from therhetoric of the sophists.

A further aspect of Pausanias' historical writing which will, Ibelieve, become clear in the course of this study, is that he takes aninterest in the biographical details of the individuals he discusses onlyinsofar as it is relevant to his purpose to do so. There are severaloccasions on which he effectively passes over an opportunity to makea point about an individual, apparently because that does not suit hispurpose.

The three factors enumerated above (scope, context, autopsy)leave no doubt that Pausanias' attitude to antiquities was one of greatand genuine interest, and that in this respect he was exceptional. Andyet these three vital differences from the contemporary tradition donot add up to a statement of Pausanias' interests and methods, noreven of the tradition to which he properly belongs. His is in part therole of recorder of art and art-history like Pliny (most closely), butalso ofperiegetes, a tradition going back at least to Hellenistic times andthe works of writers such as Douris of Samos (c.340—260). 52 RobertEisner says that 'the oldest guidebook for the whole Mediterranean isa work of Skylax, c.350 BG',53 but this is misleading in one crucialdetail: Skylax is known to have undertaken his voyage in the late sixthcentury, whereas the Periplous that has been preserved under his nameis a good century and a half later.54 Its accuracy as a record of itsauthor's travels is, therefore, dubious at best; it may rather be animaginative reconstruction - one might even call it (or at least itsattribution to an earlier author) archaizing — and it certainly cannotstand at the head of the tradition to which Pausanias belongs.

Skylax is, however, potentially important for his origin, Caryanda52 On Douris and the tradition of art-criticism in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods,

Frazer i.xxxiii-iv, lxxxii-xc; Jex-Blake and Sellers (1896) lvi-lxvii; Pollitt (1974) 9-10,60-6, 73-84. Habicht ((1985) 2) dates the beginning of periegetic writing to the third century.

53 Eisner (1991) 31, giving no references.54 How and Wells (1928) 1.319 ad Hdt. 4.44. Habicht (1985) 3 on periploi as a genre; on the

Periplus maris Erythraei of the first half of the first century AD, Casson (1989) most recently.

Introduction 23

in Caria, placing him in Asia Minor, like Pausanias. The same is trueof Skylax' contemporary, Hekataios of Miletos, whose Periodos Ges intwo books is ill-preserved, and whose Genealogiai was a work in fourbooks in which he wrote on myth and legends. Between the Periodos ofHekataios and the work of Pausanias stands that of Herodotos - or atleast the elements of periegesis in Herodotos. That Herodotos wasinfluenced by Hekataios is accepted; so too that Pausanias wasinfluenced by Herodotos, and to a much greater degree.55 All threewere from Asia Minor, Herodotos being a native of Halikarnassos inCaria (incidentally, the home region of Skylax). Domenico Mustinotes the persistence of what he calls the cult of Herodotos in AsiaMinor and, in a detailed consideration of the relationship betweenthe two, says that Topera di Pausania costituisce il caso piuimpressionante di rinascita erodotea che si conosca nella letteraturagreca'.56

The periegetic tradition, then, had already had a long (and, atleast in the case of Herodotos, distinguished) lineage in Asia Minor byPausanias' day, with Herodotos clearly a figure of particular significanceto him.57 Like Herodotos, Pausanias stresses the value of autopsy.

55 E.g. Kleingunther (1934) 43-65. Norenberg (1973); Habicht (1985) 3 and n.7, 97-8, 133,167-8 with refs; Musti (1987) xxi-iv; Jacob (1980) 68, (1980-1) 35-6; Pfundtner (1866).The (probably) Hadrianic writer Kephalion wrote 'a world history . . . nine books namedafter the Muses, written in the Ionic dialect, the model being Herodotus' (Bowie (1974) 177).

56 Musti (1987) xx.57 The above discussion of periegetic writing and literary influences on Pausanias is not intended

to be comprehensive. Among other figures, Polemon of Ilion (early second century BC) is themost important (Preller (1964); Dihle (1989) 259, (1994) 249). Frazer, in a detailedexamination of Pausanias in the light of the fragments of Polemon (i.lxxxiii-xc), concludedthat Pausanias did not copy him {pace Jacob (1980-1) 36) and that similarities were theinevitable result of visits to, and personal observation of, the same places and objects: 'the veryfrequent omission by Pausanias of things mentioned by Polemo, and the not infrequentadoption by him of opinions which contradict those of Polemo, go to prove either that he wasunacquainted with Polemo's writings, or that he deliberately disregarded and tacitlycontroverted them' (i.lxxxix). Frazer's conclusions are supported by Musti (1987) xxxi. Thesecond- or first-century BC writer Herakleides of Crete included descriptions of Greek citiesand their customs (Eisner (1991) 31). Dionysios wrote a. periegesis of the inhabited world in thesecond century AD (his most recent editor dates him to between 130 and 138 AD: Tsavari(1990) 12; so too Bowie (1990) 77-8, Jacob (1981) 30; Brodersen (1994) 10, and Bulloch(1985) 605, call him Hadrianic; Howatson (1989), s.v. 'Dionysius Periegetes'). Althoughsurviving fragments denote a writer with very different preoccupations from Pausanias('avant tout un manuel de geographie', Jacob (1981) 57), perhaps because of the muchgreater scope of the project attempted, the writings of a contemporary periegete are of interest.There are also examples otperiegeseis by writers who practised the genre only incidentally, suchas Plutarch's TTepi TCOV SV TOUS FFAaTaiafs 8cu5aAcov, as Bowie rightly notes (Bowie (1974) 185with n.52; further, below). That Pausanias was acquainted with the writing of geographersseems clear from the phrase 'those who profess to know the dimensions of the earth' (1.33.5).One such may have been his exact contemporary Claudius Ptolemaeus (most accessible in theLoeb tr. of F.E. Robbins). On minor geographers, including later ones, Diller (1952).

24 Introduction

Like Herodotos also, he is concerned with what makes one placedifferent from another, and he is ready to express his own opinionswhen he feels it appropriate.

(b) ArchaismAlthough I have distanced Pausanias from contemporary writers,this is not to suggest that his is a rare spark of interest in the past in thesecond century AD. While the narrative of Pausanias is deeplypersonal, it is also a product of the society into which its author wasborn and in which he lived. To an educated man of means of his age,antiquities were an integral part of his culture, and to a man ofPausanias5 inclination, study of them an integral part of his educationin its broadest sense.

This was no historical accident: a convincing explanation for thecreation of this cultural climate has been suggested by AntonySpawforth and Susan Walker in their two articles on the Panhellenion.58

An already existing interest in the past of mainland Greece among theeducated class of Asia Minor, among whom Pausanias would havecounted himself, was stimulated (and to an extent exploited) by thecreation of the Panhellenion. Spawforth and Walker refer to thisphenomenon as 'Greek cultural archaism', and say that 'stimulatedby Hadrianic policies, recollection of the past should be viewed as adynamic element in Greek urban life under the Antonines'.59 As theyput it, the founding of the Panhellenion encouraged 'a contemporaryperception of the Greek past and the Roman present as complementaryrather than mutually exclusive'.60 With this background, Pausanias'style of writing, more discursive than that of other sources, is to beexpected; so too is his great interest in antiquities, since in forgingthose connections between 'the Greek past and the Roman present', itwas essential that he considered the development of the artistic andcultural manifestations of that Greek past.

It is against this background that the well-known letter of Pliny theYounger to Maximus should be seen: in it, Pliny advises Maximusthat when in Greece he should 'recollect each city's former greatness,but not so as to despise her for having lost it' (Ep. 8.24). So too, Nero'sphrase, used while declaring the freedom of Greece in AD 66: 'wouldthat I were making this gift while Hellas was still at its height'

Spawforth and Walker (1985), (1986). 59 Spawforth and Walker (1986) 104.Spawforth and Walker (1986) 104. The opposite view is hinted at by Snodgrass (1987) 76-7.

Introduction 25

(further, see below p. 142).61 Both of these expressions reflect 'atypical enough Roman perspective'62 but, vitally for present purposes,both date from before the time of Hadrian, who made all the Greeksthrive except the Megarians (1.36.3). Thus expressions of the declineof Greece in the period before Hadrian have a truer ring to them thanthose after Hadrian's time; and it is in the latter category thatPausanias' own writings come, when there had occurred a genuinerevival of the physical and cultural embellishment of Greece.

The quotations just cited from Pliny the Younger and Nero showthat 'cultural archaism' long antedates Hadrian and the Panhellenion.Indeed, it is increasingly apparent in Greece from the time of theFlavians, often in some attempted re-creation, or mock re-creation ofthe past. Such manifestations included many of the games whichsprang up in imperial Greece, and many of the local festivals such asthat at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia near Sparta which featuredboy-whipping, a re-creation of the Roman period passed off as'authentic'. Pausanias witnessed this and attributed it to Lykourgos(3.16.7-11), but elsewhere he talks of the abolition of the Lykourgancustoms by the Achaeans and their 'later' restoration by the Romans(7.8.5; 8.51.3) ,63 Thus what he saw was, as he became aware (if he didnot realize it at the time), a revival in a Roman form of a late ClassicalGreek custom - a prime example of the archaizing trend in RomanGreece.

Archaism as a phenomenon in Greek and Roman art has long beenacknowledged by scholars, although they may disagree as to how torecognize it or whether specific pieces exhibit it,64 and it has long beenrecognized as central to the main rhetorical movement among theeducated elite of Pausanias' day, the Second Sophistic. Here thedefinition of'archaism' is important, not least because I believe that alack of clarity of terminology would contribute to a misunderstandingof Pausanias' role in this cultural environment.

Archaism in one sense means placing particular emphasis on thepast, and manifests itself in this instance in eulogies of the Classicalperiod, its art, culture and language, and often in attempts toreproduce them. Archaism can also mean passing something off as aproduct of an earlier era. In the former sense, while there is an

61 Larsen suggests that Nero may have derived this attitude in part from his teacher, Seneca(Larsen (1938) 467). 62 Anderson (1993) 102.

63 On this re-creation, Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 201-7.64 Harrison (1965), Zagdoun (1989).

26 Introduction

idealizing concentration on past glories, there is no suggestion thatwriter or audience (whether reader or hearer) actually believed thatthey were living in the Classical period, however much this mighthave been their fantasy. In the latter sense, there is a deliberateattempt to deceive, to pass off, for example, a neo-Classical sculptureas a Classical original, or a new cult practice as a traditional one.

The former aspect of archaism is a standard feature of the works ofthe writers of the Second Sophistic, the strongest and most relevantmanifestation of what Graham Anderson has called 'an ethos inwhich educated Greeks could seek to foster at least an illusion of pastglories of the fifth and fourth centuries BG'.65 This is repeatedlyapparent in the writings of authors such as Pausanias' exactcontemporary Aelius Aristides, who employed an idealizing emphasison the past glories of Classical Greece and wrote in Classical,particularly fourth-century, Greek.

I suggest that Pausanias' work is not susceptible to the charge ofarchaizing in either sense, and that he should not be seen as writingwith the same intentions, or within the same conventions, as Aristidesand the other writers of the Second Sophistic. This is a theme whichwill recur in succeeding chapters, but some fundamental points ofdifference may be made in the following paragraphs.

The focus of interest in the Second Sophistic was the Classical period,the fifth and, especially in respect of language, fourth centuries BG.The absence in rhetoric of examples taken from after the death ofAlexander has already been noted.66 This is a conspicuous tendencyalso among the historians of the period.67 Both historians and rhetor-icians (the latter outside the context of declamation) also refer toevents before the Classical period, notably the key figures of the periodcovered by Herodotos, such as Cyrus, Kroisos, or Solon (e.g. Lucian,Dialogues of the Dead and Phalaris). However, the concentration remainsfirmly on the Classical period, which cannot be said of Pausanias,whose attention to matters dating from before the fifth century isconsiderable (as the next chapter shows). Similarly, his attention tomatters Roman is sufficient to form the bulk of this study. Nor can itbe said that in his references to individuals, Pausanias followed thepractice standardly found in declamations of referring primarily tothose who were well known, such as the figures just cited.

65 Anderson (1993) 3; also, 'the Second Sophistic had a cult of the Greek past' (180).66 Examples include Philostratos (Gabba (1982) 64); and the extreme case of Maximus of Tyre,

whose avoidance of reference to the post-Classical is complete (Trapp (forthcoming)).67 Bowie (1974) 178-9.

Introduction 2 7

Intrinsic to the method employed by the sophists were therhetorical fireworks with which they impressed their hearers - forthese were elaborate presentations to an audience. Any subject couldbe covered by these writers; for present purposes, it is the use (a word Ichoose purposefully) of the visual arts and architecture that is mostpertinent. The most prominent manifestation of these presentations isin the practice ofekphrasis, often interpreted simply as description, butat this period a technical term expressing a particular form of verbalrepresentation, which has been characterized as 'the concentrationon the effect made on the viewer at the expense of detailed and preciseinformation'.68 This is not to argue for the exclusion of detail, which isregularly prominent in ekphraseis; but there detail is secondary toeffect, which constitutes a fundamental difference from Pausanias,whom archaeological evidence has repeatedly shown to be givingexactly such 'detailed and precise information'.

Where we cannot expect to verify Pausanias' evidence through thearchaeological record - cult practices, most obviously - we canassume, by analogy with his accurate descriptions of objects andpractices, that he recorded what he saw, and not a fossilized 'memoryof the past'.69 In that sense, he is recording the present. To writerswhose primary concern was rhetorical impressiveness, accuracycould not be at a premium: indeed, it would obstruct their aim ofscoring points, effectively tying their hands (or, rather, their tongues).Of course, in cases where what is described is overtly fictitious, thecriterion of accuracy does not apply. Pausanias is set apart by theextent of the autopsy he justifiably claims and by the extent of hisaccuracy. Even where he can be proved to be inaccurate, I do notbelieve that he can be shown to be writing what he does not believe, tobe idealizing or archaizing in the definition as deceiving given above.

This theme is again relevant to two further factors which set himapart from the trends of the period and which remain to beconsidered: language and readership.

(c) LanguagePerhaps because Pausanias is not generally regarded as a 'writer' inthe literary sense, the scholarly attention paid to his use of languagehas appeared in discrete studies rather than being integrated into

68 Webb (1992) 53.69 Eisner (1991) 32; cf. Jacob (1980-1) 44-5, 'La Grece . . . n'est plus qu'un immense musee'.

28 Introduction

wider examinations of his work.70 Yet the nuances of his language,and consequently his relationship to the linguistic fashions of his day,would have been readily apparent to his contemporaries. In the sameway that it is necessary to examine how far he aligns himself with, ordistances himself from, the other cultural trends of his day, so hislanguage must be considered against the background of his era. Ishall first consider the linguistic trends of the period, and thenPausanias' own use, and awareness, of language.

A central theme of this book is the balance of Greek and Roman,and here I briefly consider some of the public manifestations of thisbalance in language in the early empire, both that used in officialdocuments, and that found in literature.

Corinth plays a central role in the transformation of Greece into theRoman province of Achaia, and the language used in its officialdocuments reflects this process. As a Roman re-foundation, it beganas a Latin-speaking community, becoming Greek-speaking after aperiod of bilingualism: the percentage of Greek in surviving recordsrose dramatically from 3 per cent before Hadrian to 87 per cent afterhim.71 This reflects the interest of Hadrian, the most philhelleneemperor and, as noted, the first to have 'a Greek policy'. Indeed, theHellenization of Corinth was already acknowledged in writings of thesecond century.72

Similarities between Corinth and Patrai, another Roman colony,will be considered in chapter 4; here it may be noted that the balanceof Latin and Greek undergoes a similar process, the people of Patrai(like the Corinthians, Roman in origin), quickly taking up Greekrather than Latin for most purposes, but for official documentspersisting with Latin (as in Corinth), some using it into the fourthcentury.73

The deliberate discrepancy between the uses of Latin and Greekcan also be found elsewhere in the provinces:74 a striking exampleconcerns the version of the Res Gestae of Augustus from the temple ofRoma and Augustus at Ankyra in Galatia. The RG were written inLatin or Greek according to what was felt appropriate to eachlocation,75 and that in Ankyra was in both, the placing of the two70 Strid (1976), on aspects of previous scholarship, 11-14; Rocha-Pereira (1965-6); Szelest

(1953); Robert (1909) 201-7 (with Robinson (1910) 215); Riiger (1889); Boeckh (1874);Frazer i.lxix-lxxi. 71 Kent (1966) 18-19.

72 Aptly noted by Williams (1987) 35; also, Alcock (1993) 169. 73 Rizakis (1989) 185-6.74 On the use of Greek in official documents in the eastern empire, Kaimio (1979) 74-86.75 Brunt and Moore (1967) 2; Kaimio (1979) 76.

Introduction 29

versions differing significantly: as Ewen Bowie has noted, 'the Latinversion is engraved high in the most prominent section of the temple,thepronaos - too high to read easily without straining eye or neck, butin a suitable pose of ostentation; the version that people were expectedto read, the Greek, was at eye-level along the outer side of the cella\76

As in official documents, so in literature shifting proportions ofGreek and Latin can be seen. Donald Russell, seeing a move from anapproximate equilibrium between Latin and Greek in 'literaryculture' to a situation 'in which the dominance is very definitely withthe Greeks', dates it to the second century AD, the same period as themove towards Greek noted for official language, and attributes itbroadly to the same cause, the philhellene Hadrian. Anderson goesfurther, speaking of'the virtual eclipse of Latin literature by Greek inthe second century AD'.77

From the balance of Greek and Latin both in literature and inofficial writings, I return to the phenomenon of archaism, someaspects of which have already been considered, and which is manifestin the language of the period in both its inscriptions and its literature.In considering the language of inscriptions, it must be acknowledgedthat dating by letter-forms is by no means infallible.78 That caveatapart, there are cases of deliberate archaism - of the use of letter-formswhich were no longer current - the intention behind which needs tobe assessed for each case and may be harder to isolate than is the factitself. Possible archaism in the inscription on the Athenian Stoa atDelphi is discussed below (p. 74). A clear case of the use of anarchaizing script is found in an inscription of the Augustan periodfrom the Athenian Akropolis, on the base for a statue professedly bythe Classical sculptor Lykios son of Myron (whose work on theAkropolis is mentioned by Pausanias, 1.23.7; cf. 5.22.3); the archaizingscript seems to be intended to associate the inscription more closelywith the period of the statue.79

The importance of Hadrian in changing the balance of Greek andLatin has been noted; so too his role in the development of thephenomenon of archaism. It is at this period that, as Spawforth

76 Bowie (1970) 206.77 Russell (1990b); Anderson (1993) 10. More generally, Kaimio (1979).78 As Rizakis (1989) 185, observes in relation to the inscriptions of Roman Patrai.79 Raubitschek (1949) 146-50 no. 135, connecting this with the visit of Germanicus in AD 18;

Graindor (1927) 147 n.2, (1924) 14, 37. Bowersock (1979) 73, cites this example, adding thearchaizing inscription on the temple of Roma and Augustus on the Akropolis (on which,below). For another possible example, Oliver (1972b) 190-2.

30 Introduction

observes, 'Spartan ephebes suddenly adopted - and continued to useintermittently into the third century - a 'hyper-Doricizing' dialect intheir dedications to Artemis Orthia, a piece of antiquarianismpresumably intended to reinforce the claims of the training torepresent ancestral practice'.80 The same archaism in language isfound also in an inscription of Hadrianic date found at Sparta, whichrefers to a Messenian city as 'Korone'; Spawforth identifies this citywith the 'Koroneia' referred to by Pausanias (4.34.4-6).81 If so, itsuggests that Pausanias himself did not use the 'approved' archaizingform.

The language of literature is most pertinent to Pausanias, and thusto my immediate purpose. Here we have to do with the primarylinguistic trend of the Second Sophistic, Atticizing:82 this consists of a'revival, or attempted revival, of literary Greek as written by theprestigious authors of Classical Athens'.83 It involved using thegrammatical constructions of that place and period and telltalefeatures such as -TT- rather than the contemporary -CTCT-. It is, thus, aform of archaism — conspicuous as such both to those who employ itand to those who do not.

The language of Pausanias led the late eighteenth-century translatorand commentator, Thomas Taylor, to say of him that 'the obscurityof his diction is so great, that he may perhaps be considered as themost difficult author to translate of any in the Greek tongue'.84 Whyhe thought this is not, alas, made clear, and it is a sentiment thatmodern scholars would be unlikely to share; the few scholars whohave studied Pausanias' language in detail have not done so. Hislanguage is likely to strike anyone who compares it with that of, forexample, Philostratos (perhaps the best representative of the linguisticstyle of the Second Sophistic) as less Atticizing. He uses simplerconstructions, and -era- rather than -TT-, for example. A certain levelof Atticizing is almost inevitable in the work of anyone writing againstthe cultural background that I have been outlining in this chapter;but in Pausanias it is at a lower level, and he does not employ a highliterary style. That this is so may owe something to Pausanias' use ofthe Ionic Herodotos as a model in other respects.

On occasion, Pausanias shows awareness of some of the subtleties oflanguage: he can recognize 'the Doric tongue' (3.22.1); and 'ancient

80 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 206. 81 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 109.82 Schmid (1887-97); Gelzer (1979); Frosen (1974); Anderson (1993) 86-100; Trapp

(forthcoming).83 Webb (1992) 16. 84 Taylor (1794) viii.

Introduction 31

letters' (5.22.3). But these are of interest to him not for their language,but for what that language tells him; and that is better discussed inchapter 2.

(d) ReadershipIndivisible are the questions of who Pausanias' readers were, andwhat he was trying to do. Habicht says that Pausanias 'wanted toprovide a reliable guide for travellers and to produce a literary piecethat would entertain as it informed'.85 Eisner's view is that 'likeHerodotos, he was trying to present a memory of the past, the relics ofwhich he saw crumbling all around him. He was thus trying to do twothings at once, to provide both a guidebook and an entertaining orliterary essay. The audience he had in mind did not exist in his ownday'.86

But if, as Eisner says, part of the aim is to provide a guidebook, the'audience' for that at least certainly did exist, as indicated by theextent of tourism in the period.87 The audience of some of those whomention art is known: that of Cicero, for example, in his description ofVerres' despoiling of Sicily, is a jury - it is there to be impressed, andart-historical accuracy is not only secondary, but is potentially anobstacle to Cicero's presentation of the art as exceptionally valuable,and its thief, therefore, as exceptionally heinous.

By Pausanias' day, the cultural milieu had changed radically fromCicero's: the sophistic movement was one bounded fairly precisely byrules of engagement. One of those was that sophists generally spokeon subjects demanded by the occasion or by their audience (oftenextempore, at least in part) - while this was admittedly also true ofCicero, it cannot be claimed to be a characteristic of his age, but arisesfrom his personal situation. Here Pausanias differs substantially, inthat he has the luxury of following his own interests, which may ormay not coincide with those of his audience, some of whom wouldhave been used to talking about the visual arts, as indicated by thepractice of the ekphrasis of works of art, a conceit in which the audiencewas vital and complicit.

In obvious contrast to this, Pausanias' writing was the result of along pursuit of a personal fascination - we do not have enoughbiographical information to be certain of this, but the length of time

Habicht (1985) 21. 86 Eisner (1991) 32.E.g. Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 207-10; Hunt (1984); and witness Eisner's own book.Such tourism can be dated from the second century BC (Kaimio (1979) 40, cf. 205).

32 Introduction

he took over his travels and writings alone suggests that it may havebeen a lifelong pursuit - whereas the sophists were prepared to displaytheir rhetorical skills on any subject, not least for the pecuniaryrewards. Sophistic exercises require an audience, preferably oneversed in the conventions and, in all probability, themselves practisedin the skill.

Pausanias3 intended readership is harder to define because of thedifferences outlined between him and the sophists. For an authorwriting a guidebook (and whether Pausanias was doing so will beconsidered in the following paragraphs), the group comprising thosefor whom it was written must be broader in its composition. Indeed,one might argue a certain opposition: while the sophists' audiencemust be familiar with the conventions and tricks of the trade,Pausanias' readership is likely to have been a mix, at best equallysophisticated literati planning a visit to Greece, and quite probablymarkedly less well informed than he is, otherwise his book would haveno purpose. And he can hardly have subjected his potential readers -not listeners - to baffling rhetorical fireworks at the expense ofaccuracy in the manner of the sophists.

I suggest, therefore, that Pausanias stands apart from the sophistswho were his contemporaries. Most crucially, this applies to thesubject of archaism, specifically the idealizing form employed by thesophists. Here I return to Eisner's statement quoted above thatPausanias 'was trying to present a memory of the past, the relics ofwhich he saw crumbling around him'. I find it hard to reconcile theagreed fact that he was writing about objects that he saw for himselfwith the idea that he is presenting 'a memory of the past'. Anidealizing author would have restored the temples to their Classicalglory in his mind, and presented their pristine — and fictitious -appearance to his readers.

Similarly, the cults and practices Pausanias describes are those hehas observed for himself or, as he states, those he has been told of butnot actually witnessed. Some of them may have been modernre-creations, and he tells us when he believes this to be the case - mostnotably the instance of the Lykourgan customs at Sparta. He mayhave been taken in by some modern practices passed off as ancient —even by some such statues — but he presents his account in good faithand cannot be accused of attempting to mislead. If he were mindful ofthe equally educated among his readers whom he would expect tohave undertaken, or to undertake in future, the 'Grand Tour' as he

Introduction 33

had done himself, he would not expect to get away with misleadingthem, unless he followed the conventions of sophistic writing andmade it clear that he was writing an extended literary showpiece. Andthat he conspicuously does not.

Pausanias is in fact presenting not a 'memory', but a very tangiblereality of the past; but it is tangible, in the literal sense, only to thosewho followed him, who used him as a guidebook on the ground. Weare back to autopsy since, as Sihler long ago pointed out, 'only theactual traveller it is who everywhere notes what is in ruins or decay'.88

The practical difficulties of using on site such a book - consisting,presumably, of ten rolls - may have been considerable, even if thetraveller was unlikely to have required more than one roll on any onevisit. But there are two factors which suggest that these impedimentscould be overcome. First, Pausanias himself must have taken sufficientmaterial, including writing equipment (which those who followedhim would not necessarily carry), to make the many notes that heevidently did make on the spot, whether recording cult activities, orthe local myths, identifications and attributions told him by theexegetai, or transcribing inscriptions.89 Secondly, that Pausaniasintended some future travellers to use his work on site seemseminently likely, given the extraordinary care he has lavished ondetail and on topographical indicators, and given the geographicalarrangement which facilitates such visits.90

While the preceding paragraph is concerned with the possible useof Pausanias on the territory about which he writes, there is no reasonto exclude the armchair reader back in Asia Minor, or even Rome, asa member of Pausanias' intended readership. The enormous wealthof mythological detail, above all, would be readily appreciable byreaders who had never been to Greece, and had no plans to visit. Inthe same way, many of the literary references and allusions wouldgive it a cosy familiarity, although the very range of such informationthat Pausanias conveys would inevitably also include much that wasunfamiliar. That this is so is not least a consequence of the local

88 Sihler (1905) xxxii.89 Fergus Millar has said of Cassius Dio's recording method that 'it can readily be assumed that

these notes were taken down on membranae or chartae* (Millar (1964) 32). This is likely to beapplicable to Pausanias also, since such membranae (parchment notebooks) had been currentsince the end of the Republic and had not yet been superseded by codices (Reynolds andWilson (1991) 31).

90 Habicht (1985) 19-20; I agree with the criticism of Levi's re-arrangement made by Eisner(1992) 3 n.2.

34 Introduction

element in much of what he relates, since local myths would, almostby definition, tend to be unfamiliar to a wider public.

In the quotations given above, both Habicht and Eisner say thatPausanias intended to entertain, although they place different stresseson this element, Habicht seeing the work as 'a literary piece thatwould entertain as it informed', Eisner as 'both a guidebook and anentertaining or literary essay'. The apparent dichotomy set up byEisner's words is an unreal one - there is no reason why one should notentertain as one informs, as Habicht has seen. But one needs somecaution in defining 'entertaining' — undoubtedly part of the aim of thesophists, but perhaps carrying with it implications of insubstantiality.'Entertaining' has shades of Lucian's story of Herodotos reading hishistories in the temple at Olympia, a practice to which the audience inattendance is essential {Herodotos 1-2).91 We surely cannot see Pausaniasperforming his work. While this is a further element separating himfrom the sophists, it is interesting that Lucian should see a historian -the category of writer to whom Pausanias is in many respects closerthan he is to the sophists - as performing to an audience. Pausanias'evident interest in what is traditional in Greek religion, and hisrelentless pursuit of it, surely argues against the notion of entertainmentas his primary concern, as do the other differences from the sophistsalready discussed.

To say that Pausanias' work is a 'literary essay' is also not accurate,certainly in the sense in which Eisner means the phrase. However, thenumber of references or allusions to literary sources is considerable,92

a sign of the typical education of a native of Asia Minor in the secondcentury AD. We can speculate that Pausanias was well acquaintedwith the libraries of Pergamon and elsewhere;93 but we can be certainthat his library work was secondary to his own observations in thecourse of his travels.

In addition to the suggestions already made concerning Pausanias'readership, another may be considered. The importance of thecultural milieu in which Pausanias was brought up and lived has beenstressed repeatedly (and will continue to be), and I suggest that it is91 The story may be a sophistic fantasy, a better indicator of the realities of the second century

AD than the fifth century BG, although in Herodotos' own time the tradition of the rhapsodelends the story credibility. On how easy it would be for Lucian to invent the story, Nesselrath(1990) 118.

92 Musti (1987) xxiv, detects knowledge of some 150 authors in Pausanias.93 As noted by Jacob (1980-1) 36.

Introduction 35

the key to this aspect, as to many aspects, of Pausanias' writings. HereI return to the Panhellenion, an organization well represented in hishome territory of Asia Minor. The fact that Pausanias is socomplimentary to Hadrian is proof enough of his goodwill towardsthe world that Hadrian had created, and he is most unlikely to havebeen unaware of the role of the Panhellenion as an instrument ofHadrian's policy, even though he does not mention it. For thesereasons it is surely most probable that Pausanias' readers were,effectively, the delegates to the Panhellenion94 and those (presumablymore numerous) like them in their concerns. Although there was bythis period a long tradition of Romans travelling in Greece as part oftheir education,95 the interest in such travel reached an unprecedentedlevel in this period, mainly for sophistic education and display or tostudy philosophy. The creation of the Panhellenion enhanced andfacilitated this interest, certainly among the delegates whose dutiesrequired them to travel to Athens, and by extension among thosesections of the population with similar interests. Indeed, the creationof the Panhellenion may have been not least a response to the growingdesire, and ability, of an increasingly rich section of society to travel.96

This was especially true of Asia Minor, and Pausanias, while thebest-documented example of the trend, would have been by no meansuntypical in undertaking such a journey.97

A book like that of Pausanias would have been ideally suited tofacilitating future visits to Greece by his fellow natives of Asia Minor.Travellers return home. And they send letters from abroad, or reporton their travels when they return. In Pausanias' case, the manyreferences to Asia Minor in his text show clearly where his roots are,and give more than a hint that he expected his readers to be familiarwith those geographical areas, as well as with the cultural andeducational standards he himself exhibits. In speaking, as is oftendone, of a guidebook, one should not, I suggest, think of Pausanias'intended readers exclusively in terms of people walking round Greece

94 Spawforth (forthcoming). As instances of Panhellenes who are known to have travelled maybe cited Tiberius Claudius Attalus Andragathus from Phrygian Synnada, who had close tieswith Athens, Sparta and Plataiai (Spawforth and Walker (1985) 91-2, (1986) 89-90;Spawforth (forthcoming)); and M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles of Aizanoi (e.g. Worrle(1992); Levick (1988) 14-15 no.31, 176 no.583). 95 Kaimio (1979) 40.

96 Roueche (1989) 219-220.97 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 208-9, with an important corrective to Habicht's view of

Pausanias as a 'loner'.

36 Introduction

with a copy of his work, but also in terms of people at home readinghim either in advance of a trip of their own, or for sheer interest.98

This is, after all, the way that modern travellers use guidebooks: whilesome buy them when they reach their destination, many look them upwell in advance of their trip, to inform themselves by reference to thewritings of someone who has already travelled extensively in therelevant area; to enable themselves to plan their own itinerary; and tomake the most of a rare, perhaps 'once in a lifetime', opportunity(which would have been all the rarer in a world of less sophisticatedtransport). This was quite possibly part of the process by whichPausanias himself prepared for his own trip."

In summary, the text seems to me to be intended to inform those athome of what contemporary Greece is like, of what can be foundthere, and of where it can be found, as well as to give an overall visionof Greece, past and present.

PAUSANIAS ON THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF HIS DAY

I move now to the Roman period in Greece, an area of Pausanias'interest which forms the greater part of this book through discussionof Pausanias' attitudes towards the rulers of Roman Greece (chapters3-5). Since the world Pausanias lived in owed much to Hadrian, mostof the Roman period he writes about is in fact quite remote from him,a fact mentioned above in connection with perceptions of early figuressuch as Caesar and Augustus in his day. Nonetheless, it is distinctlyseparated from the Greek period, and the purpose of this section is to98 Pausanias' actual readership may have been different from that which he envisaged as he

wrote: Diller says that 'if [Pausanias' text] was published at all, it was in a limited issue forprivate circulation among the author's acquaintances' (Diller (1956) 84); 'Pausanias wasnever widely read' (Diller (1957) 169). It is improbable that this was the author's intention.The reference to Paus. 8.36.6 at Aelian, VH 12.61 (the only possible such reference in anotherauthor) is almost certainly an interpolation: Diller (1956) 87, points out that 'it is notintegrated in the context and such a citation is out of character'. Diller is followed by Habicht(1985) 1 n.i. On the textual tradition, as well as Diller's articles, Casevitz (1992) xxxi-xlvi.

99 The comparative rarity of the opportunity to travel is one reason why I am hesitant to agreewith Eisner that 'Pausanias was describing a. familiar world, the classic [sic] sites of the Greekmainland' (Eisner (1992) 12, Eisner's italics). Pausanias has an inconsistent'policy'on thingswe would expect to be familiar to his audience, admittedly a hard matter to judge. Of thoseobjects which we can reasonably assume to have been familiar, Pausanias described some inconsiderable detail (e.g. Pheidias' Zeus at Olympia), and omitted or barely described others(e.g. the Parthenon sculptures other than the Parthenos). In saying that he wasall-encompassing, his inconsistency has to be acknowledged as pervasive and unsurprising ina work of such scope.

Introduction 37

ask whether a distinction can usefully be drawn between Pausanias'treatment of objects of the pre-Roman and Roman periods.

Given that Pausanias is of necessity selective in his descriptions,does the antiquity of an object (in which I include buildings) play anypart in his selectivity? There are no places in the text where he saysthat it does - perhaps the closest is when he says that 'the charm' of astatue of Herakles at Erythrai 'is its antiquity' (7.5.5) — but it istempting to wonder whether modernity was a negative factor for him.

This may be considered here with reference to Olympia, of whichhis description is exceptionally extensive and accurate, as any visitorto Olympia can still discover (and as Pausanias himself proudlyclaims, 5.25.1). Yet there is no place in his narrative for thenymphaion of Herodes Atticus, hardly inconspicuous in size orposition, and later mentioned by Philostratos (PS 551). Renate Bolhas recently firmly established the date of the nymphaion as AD149-53, an<^ it n a s l°n§ been acknowledged that 5.1.2 indicates thatPausanias visited Olympia CAD 173.100 There can, therefore, be nodoubt that he saw the nymphaion.

The reason for this striking omission is not known (as it couldhardly be), but we might reasonably have expected Pausanias toinclude it in view of its unusual form and size, as well as the sheerdetail of his account of Olympia, although it may have been the veryquantity of material to record that made him more than usuallyselective. It is possible that it was, at least in part, the very modernityof the nymphaion which caused Pausanias to omit it.101 If so, thiswould not be the first example of a dislike of contemporary works, asPlato reserved especial venom for the artistic trends of his own time,102

100 Bol (1984) 99-100. On the date of Pausanias' visit, Habicht (1985) 9; Papahatzis 3.196-7;Frazer i.xv.

101 Habicht (1985) 134-5 and n.74. Settis (1968) 43 suggests that the nymphaion was builtbetween Pausanias' visit and the publication of his book on Elis (supported by Musti (1987)Hi). For this to be so, the date of AD 173 (5.1.2) must have been inserted while 'writing up'.This is possible, but assumes more than we know of Pausanias' compositional method.Indeed, a strong indication that Pausanias did not add retrospective details of this naturecomes from the fact that he says at 7.20.6 that he would have mentioned the Odeion ofHerodes in his book on Athens if it had been built at the time of his visit. The fact that he didnot simply slip a reference to it into his account of Athens postfactum suggests that he wouldnot do so at Olympia either. This does leave open a possibility that his work on Athens hadbeen published (whatever that would mean) by the time he wrote 7.20.6; this may be so butit is unprovable, not least because we know nothing of the fate of Pausanias' writings in hisown time (Diller (1956) esp. 84). Ameling (1983) 2.128, also disagrees with Settis.

102 Pollitt (1974) 45.

38 Introduction

and Vitruvius railed most vehemently against the style of painting ofhis day.103 Although it would be rash to compare too closely threewriters so far separated in time and purpose, an apparent disdain forthe art of their own period does seem to be a unifying factor.

Another, complementary, reason for the omission of the nymphaionmay be advanced: while it is a spectacular gift, it is above all apractical one, of little importance in determining what the sanctuaryis really about or in promoting its sanctity. While an ancient buildingwith a practical purpose can be seen as hallowed by time and usage, amodern building of similar purpose has no tradition to fall back on,and as such will more likely be treated as an intruder among theestablished monuments than as worthy of instant veneration.104 Abuilding on this scale financed and dedicated (Philostratos uses theword anetheke) by a private individual (and, in this case, apparentlyby his wife Regilla105) perhaps ran the risk of being seen as anexpression less of veneration than of impiety in such a setting. Thenymphaion is also discussed in the context of Pausanias' otherreferences to Herodes in chapter 6.

Since the reason for Pausanias' omission of the nymphaion atOlympia must remain speculative, we are no closer to a definitiveanswer to the question posed of whether the antiquity of an objectplays a part in his selectivity. There is, however, other evidence whichcan profitably be adduced.

In the last century, H. Stuart Jones observed of Pausanias that cit isspecially noticeable that the objects of interest which he describesbelong either to the period previous to 150 BG or to his own time'.106 Ifthis is so (and by no means all the objects Pausanias mentions arereadily datable), it is interesting to compare this observation with thewell-known comment of Pliny, speaking of 295-292 BG, that 'cessavitdeinde ars ac rursus Olympiade GLVI revixit' (JV7/34.52).107 Since the103 75-3—8. This is taken to refer to the late l ib style by Ling (1991) 38; Strong (1976) 94-6;

Bastet and de Vos (1979); Zanker (1988) 279. It has also been suggested that the third styleis being attacked (e.g. J. Liversidge in Henig (1983) 101).

104 In defending the nymphaion, it is its practicality which Lucian stresses (Peregrinus 19), andhe discusses it in order to attack Peregrinus rather than for its own sake. The passage isdiscussed by Walker (1987) 60-2; also by Jones (1986) 125. On Lucian's attitudes to pastand present in general, Jones (1986) esp. 150-9.

105 This is strongly implied by the inscription on the marble bull at the centre of the nymphaion,which exactly echoes the words Philostratos uses in speaking of Herodes' dedication(Ameling (1983) 2.127-8 no. 112). The bull, with the inscription visible, is shown atPapahatzis 3.305. 106 Stuart Jones (1895) xxvi.

107 The exact meaning of'ars' is problematic: Pollitt (1974) 27, sees it as a translation oftechne(cf. pp. 32-7); Isager (1991) 97-8 and Stewart (1990a) 237-8, as referring exclusively to

Introduction 39

156th Olympiad dates to 156-153 BC, Pliny's expressed date for therevival of 'ars' coincides almost exactly with Pausanias' apparentdate for the suspension of art worth discussing. This seemingcontradiction in dates suggests that there was in fact nothingobjectively significant about the date of c. 150 BG. It is possible,although not demonstrable, that the sites of mainland Greecereceived few dedications in the period from c.295-150 BG. Pliny'sstatement can perhaps be explained by suggesting that he (or hissources) saw a lack of specific named sculptors, lists of whom, withtheir works, is the essence of his chapters. But Pausanias' concern wasfar wider, and since sites continued to be built on, and sculptures,paintings and lesser works continued to be produced, his apparentomission of works of this period cannot be explained on the groundsthat it arises naturally from the programme of his work.

Bowie, starting from the same point, that Pausanias 'almostcompletely neglects monuments and dedications later than c. 150 BC',says 'the traditional explanation of the phenomenon throws the chiefblame on his sources: he was using writers of the second century BGand did not trouble to supplement them by later information'.108

Bowie rightly responds that this can only be a partial explanation,seeing the cause in the political decline evident in the period and theresultant lack of interest in it on the part of both writers and readers.It may also be added that one did not need writers of the lateHellenistic and early imperial period to know what the works of artand buildings of that period were if one saw those objects for oneself.And Pausanias did exactly that. In other words, while agreeing withthe proposition that he is less concerned with work after 150 BC(although it is a basic proposition of this book that the neglect is not assevere as has been believed), I suggest that he does so of his owninclination — after all, as Sihler pertinently remarks, 'Pausanias was

bronzes; Smith (1991) 7, to sculpture as a whole. On the wider implications, Gros (1978),Preisshofen (1979) esp. 269-82, Stewart (1979) 3-33. For present purposes, the importantpoint is that, as Smith says, Pliny's words reflect 'received opinion about Hellenistic artamong educated Romans'. On the sculpture of this period, Smith (1991); Ridgway (1990)esp. 209-45; Stewart (1990a) 197-221, (1979) 3-64. On the art of the period as a whole,Pollitt (1986).

108 Bowie (1974) 188; although Bowie gives no references, three writers probably of thisapproximate period have been discussed above for their relevance to Pausanias, namelyPolemon, Rhianos and Myron. In no case can what Bowie calls 'the traditional explanation'be shown to be supported. Also pertinent here is 1.6.1, which shows Pausanias' own feelingthat the later third century BC was a problem in terms of historical writings (the passage isdiscussed further below, p. 170). In short, he is suggesting the opposite of derivation fromsources of this period.

40 Introduction

under no contract with posterity to bring his data down to his owntime'109 - and not as a result of a weakness of the sources; to maintainthat is to take an excessively literary view of Pausanias, who I havealready argued should be distanced from the main literary fashions ofhis day.

We are back to Pausanias' opinion of modernity. That he wasaware of such modernity is clear from the fact that, as Habicht notes,Pausanias uses the expression 'in my [or 'our'] own time' on 144occasions.110 Habicht observes, however, that there are only sevenoccasions on which he uses the phrase in connection with artefacts indatable contexts: the following is based on Habicht's list, withadditional comments:

(1) and (2) 7.5.9 'in my day the Smyrnaians had a sanctuary ofAsklepios built'. This has been variously dated to between c.151and c.166.111 The same building is also referred to at 2.26.9,where Pausanias says 'in our time the sanctuary of Asklepiosbeside the sea at Smyrna was founded from the one at Pergamon'.Both of these are passing references with no attempt at description.The revival of interest in Asklepios in Pausanias' day, and in hiswritings, has been remarked on (see above, p. 11 n.23), and hispicking out a sanctuary of Asklepios to mention is likely to derivefrom this general interest. See also (7) below.

(3) 7.20.6 refers to the Odeion of Herodes Atticus, but in the contextof a description of Patrai; Pausanias goes on to say that 'in mybook on Attica this Odeion is not mentioned because mydescription of Athens was finished before Herodes began to buildthe hall'. It is of little significance that in this passage, he simplymentions it with no detail.

(4) 5.21.15 refers to two statues of AD 125, dedicated at Olympia andrepresenting athletes who had been fined for cheating. Appro-priately, they are mentioned in the context of the row of £anes,the bronze statues of Zeus erected by the approach to the stadiumat Olympia which were made from the proceeds of such fines(5.21.2). Again, there is no description or discussion of them asstatues.

109 Sihler (1905) xxxi.110 Habicht (1985) 176; the following owes much to Habicht (1985) 176-80, in which he

discusses Pausanias' use of various phrases meaning 'in my time', and concludes that theymean 'since I was born' (176). m Habicht (1985) 10.

Introduction 41

(5) 8.10.2 refers to Hadrian's new sanctuary of Poseidon Hippiosnear Mantinea, AD I I 7-38; this is mentioned largely to make apoint of contrast with the original sanctuary built by the veryearly artists Trophonios and Agamedes.112

(6) 2.1.7 refers to Herodes Atticus3 dedication in the temple ofPoseidon at the Isthmus of a chryselephantine group of Poseidon,Amphitrite, Palaimon, Tritons, horses, dolphins et al., perhapsdedicated in the 150s AD.113 This is the only one of these examplesto contain a significant element of description.

(7) 2.27.6-7 refers to the buildings 'erected in our time by theRoman senator Antoninus' in the sanctuary of Asklepios atEpidauros. These include a bath, sanctuary, and temple, as wellas the restoration of a ruinous stoa and the building of a house forthe sick.114 There is no comment on the buildings as such, just abrief statement of their existence and, in the case of the house, ofits usefulness. See also nos. (1) and (2), on the revival of interest inAsklepios in Pausanias' day.

With the exception of the description of the dedications of HerodesAtticus at Isthmia (perhaps treated differently because it is the onlycult group in this list, and chryselephantine at that), in all these casesPausanias simply mentions the presence of these buildings or statues,sometimes using them to make a point of contrast. In short, theyappear to arise as a result of the discussion of other buildings orsculptures rather than because of their own virtues or intrinsicinterest. The same can be said for Pausanias' mention of the existenceof the tribe of Hadrianis 'in my day', arising from his detaileddiscussion of the monument of the Eponymous Heroes in the Agora ofAthens (the implications of this comment are further discussed in thesection on Hadrian, below, p. 171).

Many objects are just mentioned in the course of Pausanias'narrative without any discussion, among them modern ones, such asthe stoas flanking the Panathenaic way in Athens, built CAD 100, andcharacterized by Shear as typical of'an infusion of new architectural112 Trophonios and Agamedes' most famous reputed work was the fourth temple of Apollo at

Delphi of the first half of the sixth century BC (10.5.13).113 Sturgeon (1987) 4, 76—113, publishing the Roman archaizing marble cult group now on

display in the Isthmia museum. Dedications of Herodes at Isthmia, including a colossalPoseidon, and a dolphin honouring Palaimon-Melikertes, are mentioned by Philostratos,

114 On the identity of Antoninus, and further consideration of this passage, see below, p. 194.

42 Introduction

concepts from abroad',115 but only mentioned in passing by Pausaniaswith no indication of date (1.2.4).116 This may well be a case offamiliarity breeding indifference, at least for Pausanias, since theform of colonnaded street had already become familiar in his nativeland of Asia Minor (and Corinth, the Lechaion road), before this, itsfirst appearance in Athens.117

Other modern buildings mentioned include the baths of Trajan,and his hippodrome and Forum at Rome, 'the last of which is worthseeing for its splendour, and especially for its bronze roof (5.12.6;Cassius Dio (69.4.1) also mentions the baths of Trajan).118

It may be concluded from this that Pausanias' attitude to modernobjects and buildings betrays a comparative disdain for the contem-porary. His approaches to the wider aspects of Rome, and theprominent figures of the Roman period in Greece, remain to beassessed; but first, his attitudes to the past will be considered.115 Shear (1981) 369-72, quote from p. 371; Shear 370 n.59 notes the earlier, erroneous

ascription to the Augustan period (which is repeated by Geagan (1979) 381).116 Also mentioned by the fourth-century AD rhetorician Himerios, Orationes 3.12.117 Shear (1981) 372.118 Although based on Domitianic beginnings, brickstamps dating to the years after AD 104

prove that the completion of the Forum is Trajanic, while the baths are Domitianic (Jones94)-

CHAPTER 2

Pausanias on the past

The very fact that Pausanias wrote at such length about the sites andmonuments of Greece is itself indicative of his most importantattitude towards antiquities. That is, that he thought them ofsufficient value to be worth recording and, in recording them, hethought it worth travelling extensively in mainland Greece over aperiod of many years to see them for himself.

Although the context of Pausanias' writings, in the tradition of theperiegesis and against the cultural and political background of his day,has been stressed in the previous chapter, analysis of his attitude toantiquities involves greater complexities and subtleties than areaccounted for simply by the historical context into which he was born.

J J . Pollitt has observed that Pausanias 'almost never expressedpersonal preferences or values beyond pointing out that certain workwas "worth seeing'".1 Similarly Habicht, although he argues thatPausanias has been unjustly neglected,2 gives little space to considerationof the shades of presentation reflected in Pausanias' writings, that is,to how his narrative reflects differing attitudes to specific works andtypes of works. In contrast, I suggest that Pausanias had strongpersonal preferences and values in his attitudes to the objects and siteshe describes, and that they are reflected in the subtleties of presentationof the objects described in his narrative. It is those attitudes that Ihope to define more closely in this chapter.

There are some points which will be immediately apparent to anyreader of Pausanias: his selectivity is perhaps the most striking. Pollittis right that he occasionally reserved the epithet 'worth seeing' [theasaxios) for a particular artefact or site (e.g. 1.5.4, 2-27-5> 4-31-10?8.26.7, 9.2.7). But the infrequency of use of this epithet in itself showsthat being 'worth seeing' was far from the decisive criterion in

1 Pollitt (1974) 10. 2 Habicht (1985) xi-xii; cf. 165-75.

43

44 Pausanias on the past

Pausanias' selection of objects to record. He reminds us on occasionthat he is choosing which works to present and which to omit, apractical step in the description of crowded sites.3 Exactly howcrowded these sites were may be inferred from Pliny's report thatthere were three thousand statues in Rhodes in the first century AD,and that there was probably 'no smaller number' at Athens, Olympiaand Delphi (NH34-37).4 How many more there would have been byPausanias' day can only be guessed.

The works Pausanias omits are those he considers less special thanthose he describes: of his omissions at Delphi, he says, 'as to theathletes and musical competitors who have attracted no notice fromthe majority of mankind, I hold them hardly worthy of attention'(10.9.2). The obscurity of the musicians is one matter, but a widerreason may lie behind his next phrase: 'the athletes who have madethemselves a name have already been set forth by me in my account ofElis'. There is implicit here a sense of appropriateness, that Olympiawas the home of Greek athletics, and the fitting place to describeathlete statues; although it was the site of the Pythian games, Delphiheld primacy in its oracle, not in athletics. In short, Pausanias istrying to distinguish what would be standard at a particular site fromwhat would be special to it, and thereby worthy of description.

It was argued in the previous chapter that Pausanias' attitude tomodern objects and buildings betrays a comparative disdain forcontemporary art. In detailing Pausanias' preference for the past,Habicht notes also the paucity of contemporary or recent writers hementions, and his evident admiration for the sculptors of the earlierperiod.5 But while this, like the discussion of the previous paragraph,documents this preference of Pausanias', it does not account for it.Although Pausanias does not make the reasons for his apparentpreference for the past explicit, it may reflect a belief that antiquitylegitimizes a site and a cult and that it gives something more thangeneral appropriateness. This necessarily affects his view of modernity,and here the discussion of the nymphaion at Olympia is againpertinent. While part of Pausanias' concern was with modernity in

3 E.g. 10.9.2 at Delphi; 5.21.1, 6.1.2 at Olympia; 1.39.3 a t Athens; 3.11.1 at Sparta; 2.13.3 atPhlious.

4 Dio Chrysostom's report that Nero 'removed most of the statues on the Akropolis of Athens'(Or. 31.148) is irreconcilable both with Pliny's account and with Pausanias' seeing so muchfrom before the mid first century AD. It may, therefore, be disregarded, not surprisingly for areport by an orator, whose account should not be examined too closely for its accuracy.

5 Habicht (1985) 117-40, esp. 131-40.

Pausanias on the past 45

the sense of physical newness, he also had a sense of the differentperceptions of how the art related to the site at which it was found. Inthat light, the appropriateness of a monument to a site was animportant factor, and all the more so in the case of a sanctuary, whereolder monuments were more naturally in place. Appropriateness,therefore, was an important factor in Pausanias' selectivity.

Although Pausanias' primary concern was with objects of pastages, he was also concerned with those past ages themselves. It will beargued in what follows that this is a central motivation behind hisdescriptive techniques. It is clear that Pausanias did not simplyrecord manifestations of the past, but that he thought about the past.One indication of this is his statement that he has 'investigated verycarefully the dates of Hesiod and Homer' (9.30.3). This was probablytrue — and we cannot know otherwise — although it is reminiscent oftraditional claims to scholarship such as, for example, the similar onemade by Herodotos (2.53), whom we have already seen to besomething of a model for Pausanias. It may be, therefore, that theclaim to have studied the dates of Hesiod and Homer is made with aneye to impressing the reader with Pausanias' own scholarly qualities.But even if this is so, such inquisitiveness and scholarly investigation isentirely commensurate with Pausanias' educational background,and with other deductions which can be drawn concerning hisinterest in the past, to which this chapter is devoted.

Pausanias' interest in the past is apparent also in his treatment ofobjects, most immediately in his practice of referring to them as'ancient' (archaios orpalaios) or 'very ancient' (archaiotatos orpalaiotatos).In attempting to assess how this reflects his attitude to thoseantiquities he details, it is of central importance to ask two basicquestions: first, what criteria does Pausanias use to classify somethingas 'ancient' or 'very ancient', and secondly, how far does hedistinguish phases under the overall heading of 'the past'?

CRITERIA

Technique

It is clear from many references that Pausanias was interested intechnique and the development of technical skills. He refers toKallimachos as one who 'though inferior to the best artists in theactual practice of his art (techne), so far surpassed them all in ingenuity

46 Pausanias on the past

that he was the first to bore holes in stones' (1.26.7). While the literaltruth of this cannot be sustained,6 it does bear witness to a traditionabout the past which can be seen to be manifest in several other areasof Greek and Roman life. This is the desire for aprotos heuretes or firstfounder, a name to which inventions and new developments can beattributed.7 The clearest example in the context of art is the name ofHippodamos, credited in our sources with the invention of axialtown-planning;8 Pliny's writings on art include lists of inventors andof first occurrences of a very wide range of subjects and practices {NH7.191—215). 9 The tradition extends also to literature, its most notableappearance being as the raison d'etre of Vergil's Aeneid, which isessentially a foundation myth centred on just such a 'first founder'.While the veracity of the tradition concerning Kallimachos must beseriously doubted, the fact that Pausanias is mentioning such a story isitself sufficient to indicate that both tradition and Pausanias saw suchan advance in the technical aspects of an art (in this case, gem-cutting)as worthy of note.

A similar case arises from Pausanias' description of Delphi, wherehe observes that 'of the offerings sent by the kings of Lydia nothingnow remains except the iron stand of Alyattes' bowl. This stand is awork of Glaukos the Chian, who invented the welding of iron'(10.16.1; on similar approaches to the origins of bronzeworkingtechniques, see below, pp. 71-2). This may be derived from Herodotos(1.25), although it is clear that Pausanias saw the stand for himself, ina reduced form since Herodotos' day when it also had the silver bowl(see above, p. 18). Indeed if, as is almost certain, Pausanias was aLydian himself, he may well have made a particular point of seeingthe offering of the kings of Lydia. The stress on the link with a famousman gives additional sanctity to the particular piece or the particularinvention. Again, the invention of such a long-established techniqueis unlikely to be accurately attributable, but there is a perceivednecessity for a specific named inventor. Pausanias makes thesereferences with apparent admiration and names the individuals6 Stewart (1990a) 39; Wycherley (1982) 187.7 Examples include Aristotle's attributions of theatrical developments to Aeschylus, Sophocles,

Epicharmus, Phormis and Krates (Poetics 3.5,4.16, 5.4-6); Arafat (1990b) 63; Anderson saysthat 'Pausanias has a natural penchant for the "first beginnings" of everything, for the earlyhistory of a city-state or region' (Anderson (1993) 105); and Jacob notes that 'before visiting aregion, Pausanias often traces the history of the region back to the appearance of the first man'(Jacob (1980) 73). On the phenomenon in general, Kleingunther (1934).

8 Aristotle, Pol. 2.5.1-5, 7.10.4. McCredie (1971); Burns (1976); Wycherley (1962) 15-35,(1964b); Martin (1974) 103-6; Garland (1987) 26-7, 181-2. 9 Isager (1991) 36.

Pausanias on the past 47

concerned as a means of giving them what he sees as their due credit.This is particularly apparent in the reference to Kallimachos, butmay be inferred in the second example from his belief, expressedelsewhere, that 'to make images (agalmata) out of iron is a mostdifficult and laborious process' (10.18.6).10

These examples make the important point that along with Pausanias'interest in skill and technique comes an interest in the development ofthat technique, and it is from this that many comments on antiquitiesarise. It is perhaps here that Pausanias differs from writers like Pliny,whose work contains more on technique. Pausanias is not simplyconcerned with technique jfr̂ r se, but with technique as an indicator ofrelative date.

While the two examples cited suggest Pausanias' interest inantiquity because they concentrate on the first practitioner of therelevant skill, they say nothing of the nature or depth of that skill. Butit is clear from many examples that Pausanias saw the development ofskill as indicative of the chronological development of an art. Itappears to be technique that was felt by Pausanias to be the mostobvious way of distinguishing the ancient from the less ancient andthe modern.

Pausanias explicitly cites technical simplicity as a characteristic ofa statue in his discussion of the contents of the temple of Hera atOlympia: 'in the temple of Hera there is an image11 of Zeus. Theimage (agalma) of Hera is seated on a throne . . . The workmanship ofthese images is rude (kapla)' (5.17.1).12 He then gives a list of otherworks in the cella of the temple, and concludes by saying 'I cannot tellwho made these images, but they seem to me to be also extremelyancient' (5.17.3: es ta malista archaia). Although it is not explicitlystated, this may reasonably be taken to confirm that Pausanias sawsimplicity as a hallmark of antiquity.13 The same unstated assumptionalmost certainly motivated Pausanias' ascription of a statue atErythrai in Asia Minor: 'from various indications I judged the image{agalma) to be a work of Endoios, particularly from an inspection ofthe workmanship' (7.5.9).

The notion of technical simplicity as a hallmark of the most ancient10 Nonetheless, he merely mentions an iron statue of Epaminondas in Messene (4.31.10), not

even speculating on its date.11 There is a lacuna in the text here, and the word 'statue' is understood.12 Pollitt (1974) 142 wonders whether hapla means 'uncomplicated? primitive?'.13 Pollitt (1974) 142 draws a pertinent parallel with the use of colour in painting. On Pausanias'

account of the contents of the Heraion, Arafat (1995)-

48 Pausanias on the past

works is also evident from, for example, this comment on a statue fromthe Akropolis of Athens: 'he who prefers the products of art (techne) tomere antiquity (archaiotes) should observe the following: there is aman wearing a helmet, a work of Kleoitas, who has inwrought theman's nails of silver' (1.24.3). The implication is not only that technewas lacking in archaia but that it consists (at least here) in fine detailssuch as the finger-nails being made of a different material. Pausanias'enthusiasm for this particular statue's technical accomplishment mayhave been coloured by his belief that the same Kleoitas wasresponsible for the invention of the starting mechanism for the horseraces at Olympia (6.20.14). With the example of Pausanias' discussionof Kleoitas' helmeted man before us, it can more readily beunderstood that when Pausanias says elsewhere that an agalma 'isplainly older, and ruder in style, than the image of Athena atAmphissa' (10.38.7; archaioteron kai argoteron ten technen), he intends alink to be made between the antiquity of the statue and its technique.We should infer that the technique is characterized by simplicity; butPausanias does not state this explicitly, taking it for granted, andapparently expecting his readers to think the same way. And we mustremember this in considering other occasions where he speaks oftechnique. Although the use of technical backwardness (implied inthe word argoteron in the passage quoted above (10.38.7), but neverdefined) as the sole criterion for dating is a mis-judgement, we mustask exactly how much of a mis-judgement it is for each style or object.This is important because we use precisely this same idea in creatingour own typologies of artefacts; for this reason, such an approachstrikes a familiar chord with us.

Here a particularly revealing series of examples cited by Pausaniasis pertinent. The word argos (used in the passage just cited) appears onseveral occasions in combination with lithos, translated (rightly, Ithink) by Frazer and Jones as 'unwrought stone'.14 At Thespiai, forexample, he saw 'a very ancient image of [Eros], an unwrought stone'(9.27.1). These examples indicate simplicity of style and technique,and surely refer to aniconic images.15 To Pausanias this is a sign of an14 LSJ also translate argos as 'unwrought'; Levi as 'rough', which is more appropriate in the

comparative than the positive (as at 10.38.7 cited above, where Frazer similarly uses 'ruder').Pollitt does not discuss the word. On stones in cult, Kron (1992), esp. 64-9 on argoi lithoi.Also, Jacob (1980-1) 50-1.

15 Pausanias mentions unwrought stones as markers of sacred places at 9.18.2 (the grave ofTydeus), and 9.19.3 (enclosing the place where Teiresias decapitated a snake). He enthusesover 'a wall of unwrought stones that is worth seeing' in front of a temple of Aphrodite on theSacred Way (1.37.7), perhaps best taken as a reference to Lesbian or polygonal masonry; sotoo the 'small sanctuary of Poseidon built of unhewn stones' at Antikyra (10.36.8).

Pausanias on the past 49

extremely early date. This is clear from his comment on the shrine ofHerakles at Hyettos in Boiotia: '[Herakles] is represented, not by anartificial image [agalma), but in the ancient fashion by an unwroughtstone' (9.24.3). The link between unwrought stones and antiquity ismade explicit also in his comment on a spring sacred to Hermes atPharai in Achaea: 'close to the image stand about thirty squarestones: these the people of Pharai revere, giving to each stone thename of a god. In the olden time all the Greeks worshippedunwrought stones instead of images' (7.22.4).16

As on other occasions, antiquity can confer legitimacy, and this isapparent in the context of unwrought stones, as one would expect of aform Pausanias picks out as particularly ancient. The best examplecomes in his account of the Areopagus in Athens, where he mentionsOrestes' trial there, and an altar dedicated by Orestes, adding that'the unwrought stones on which the accused and accusers stand arenamed respectively the stone of Injury and the stone of Ruthlessness'(1.28.5). This is a clear case of the technically simple unwrought stoneindicating antiquity, and of antiquity in turn legitimizing, of agesanctioning a judicial procedure, reinforced by the association withthe hero Orestes and one of the formative trials of Greek myth-history.Similarly, Pausanias saw what was 'said to be the stone on which ninemen of Troizen once purified Orestes after the murder of his mother'(2.31.4), and Orestes is associated with an unwrought stone possessingmagic properties at Gytheion (3.22.1).

A comparable case has been argued for the long rectangular stonefound by the excavators of the Athenian Agora in front of the RoyalStoa, and associated with the oath-stone recorded in the sources.17

The identification is hard to dispute, not least because the deliberatediversion of a drain to take account of the stone indicates its fixedposition, which can only be accounted for by some such especialfunction. Whether or not it is, as has been suggested, the lintel from aMycenaean tholos tomb, it would have had evident antiquity, both tothe Greeks of the period when the stoa was built and to later visitorssuch as Pausanias, and this would have conferred consequent sanctity.

There are also instances where Pausanias refers to unwroughtstones (although he does not in fact use the word argos in these cases)being used in cults to represent the god, after whom the stone may be

16 At 8.48.6, Pausanias mentions a square image of Zeus Teleios at Tegea in Arkadia, with thecomment that 'the Arkadians appear to me to be exceedingly fond of the square shape'.However, squareness need not designate unwrought, nor ancient, as Herms prove; Kron(1992) 56-9. 17 Shear (1994) 242-5; Kron (1992) 66.

50 Pausanias on the past

named. Thus at Gytheion, speaking of the stone just mentioned,Pausanias says 'they say that Orestes, sitting down on it, was relievedof his madness; therefore the stone was named Zeus Kappotas('reliever') in the Doric tongue' (3.22. i).18 And at Megara, Pausaniassaw 'a stone in the shape of a small pyramid: they name it ApolloKarinos' (1.44.2). Uta Kron cites comparable examples, and notessimilar stones with an Apolline link, above all the omphalos atDelphi, which is not referred to by Pausanias, although he notes astone at Delphi on which 'they pour oil every day, and at everyfestival they put unspun wool on it. There is also a notion that thisstone was given to Kronos instead of the child, and that Kronosspewed it out again' (10.24.6).19 Here the latter clause - perhapsderived from Hesiod (Theog. 497-500) and at least a witness to along-lived tradition - is what gives the stone antiquity and sanctity,not the form of the stone per se.

While Pausanias' distinction in the description of the image ofHerakles at Hyettos (9.24.3) between a worked and an unworkedimage is a reflection of a technical difference seen as a means ofdating, it is also just possible that Pausanias is alluding to thechronological development of Greek sculpture from soft limestone toharder stones;20 he would certainly have been aware of it and wouldhave seen many examples of both. On numerous occasions, he showshis interest in, and awareness of, the material of a particular object orbuilding, and it is to this aspect of his observations that I now turn.

Material

There are several occasions on which Pausanias specifies that a statueis of stone, including marble, and of a particular type, whetherThasian or Egyptian (like two statues of Hadrian which he saw in

18 'Kappotas' is a hapax legomenon and its meaning unclear: in examining its possible etymology,Farnell (1896) 46, translated it 'the falling', and Cook (1940) 939-42 'the fallen', taking it torefer to the stone's having fallen from the sky. However, this does not explain 'therefore' (diatouto) in this passage, hence my retention of Frazer's translation. Jacob (1980) 79-80, givinganalogous examples in Pausanias, translates the latter part of this passage: 'this is why thestone is named "Zeus' rest"', but this is grammatically untenable: whatever its meaning, thephrase can only indicate that the stone was named Zeus, as Frazer understands it (followedby Levi (1971) 2.80, and Jones (Loeb)).

19 Kron (1992) 62-3; she refers (p. 69) to stone cults flourishing anew in the later Hellenisticand Roman period, perhaps as a result of the influence of oriental religion, but there is no hintin Pausanias that he thought what he was seeing were new cults.

20 Adams (1978); Adam (1966).

Pausanias on the past 51

front of the sanctuary of Olympian Zeus in Athens, 1.18.6), Phrygianor Libyan (1.18.8-9), Parian or Pentelic,21 white or black.22

Pausanias' interest in stone is not confined to that used for statuary:in describing the local stone at Megara he says that it 'is the only partof Greece where this mussel-stone (lithos konchitos) is found, and manybuildings in the city are made of it. It is very white and softer thanother stone, and there are sea-mussels all through it' (1.44.6). It is amark of the quality of the stucco covering on the temples at Olympiathat Pausanias did not remark on the very shelly nature of the marineconglomerate from which they are made.

Again, 'at Panopeus there is beside the road a small building ofunburnt brick' (10.4.4); s o too> a t Stiris in Phokis he notes a sanctuaryof Demeter of'unburnt brick, but the image is of Pentelic marble',sounding a note of unexpected incongruity (10.35.10). He thoughtthe Philippeion at Olympia was 'made of burnt bricks' (5.20.10), anapparent misunderstanding caused by the use of painted stucco overthe brick,23 and also notes at Olympia 'an altar of unburnt brick,plastered over on the outside', newly made for every Olympiad(6.20.11). At Samikon in Elis there was a sanctuary (hieron) ofDemeter which was 'made of unburnt bricks' (5.5.6; it 'had no

21 Parian: 1.14.7, 1.33.2-3, 1.43.5, 2.2.8, 2.29.1, 2.35.3, 4.31.6, 5.11.10 (the fender round thepool in the cella of the temple of Zeus at Olympia), 5.12.6, 8.25.6 (an akrolith), 9.20.4.Pentelic: 5.6.6, 5.10.3 (tiles at Olympia), 6.21.2, 7.25.9, 7.26.4, 8.28.1 (the temple ofAsklepios at Gortys in Arkadia), 8.30.10, 8.47.1, 9.2.7, 9.4.1 (an akrolith), 9.11.6, 9.25.3,9.27.3, 10.4.4, 10.32.1 (Herodes'stadium at Delphi), 10.33.4, 10.35.10. All these are referredto as made of lithos and, apart from those noted, refer to statues, several by recognized masters(including Pheidias, Praxiteles, Damophon, Kephisodotos, Skopas). Lithos, therefore, is usedhere to denote marble; so too in the building inscription referring to the altar of Athena Nikeon the Akropolis of Athens (Meiggs and Lewis (1988) no. 44 line 13). Pausanias has noseparate word for marble, although the word marmaros had been used by Homer (//. 12.380;Od. 9.499), albeit not to mean marble {pace Pliny NH 36.45-6). The word occurs in theseventh century at Alkman fr. 1.31, but need not mean marble (although this is how it istaken by Page (1951) 42-3). If it does not, it was apparently first used in this sense in theHippokratic corpus (Mul. 2.185) or by Theophrastus (Lap. 9.69). The phrase marmaros lithosis used by Strabo (14.1.35).

22 White: 1.22.4 (the roof of the Propylaia on the Akropolis at Athens), 1.32.5 (a trophy atMarathon), 1.34.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 2-7-5> 2.10.7, 2.11.2 (an altar), 2.20.1, 2.21.4 (built trophy orfunerary monument - Pausanias opts for the latter), 2.23.4, 2.24.5, 2.29.6 (a peribolostetragonos), 2.31.3 (chairs), 2.34.11, 2.36.3, 3.14.1, 6.20.9 (an altar), 7.5.9, 7.20.9, 7.22.6,7.23.9, 8.24.12, 8.37.12, 8.48.8 (a relief), 9.2.5 (altar and statue), 9.19.6, 9.39.9 (floor oforacular enclosure at Lebadeia), 9.40.3 (a relief). These all refer to statues, except thosenoted in brackets, and all of lithos leukos. Frazer translates all of these as 'marble' which, inview of the previous note, may be correct but cannot be claimed to be so with certainty.

Black: 5.11.1 o (flagstones in front of Pheidias' statue of Zeus at Olympia), 8.24.12 (imagesof Erymanthos on the Nile, because it descends through 'Ethiopia'), 10.36.3 (a local Phokianstone used for a wall). 23 Dinsmoor (1950) 236. For the Philippeion, Seiler (1986) 89-103.

52 Pausanias on the past

image'). And he discusses the pros and cons of brick-built walls in hisdiscussion of Mantinea (8.8.7-8).

Pausanias' careful distinguishing of types of stone may also be ameans of making clear the contrast between earlier building techniquesand those of contemporary Roman practice.24

Of other materials, Pausanias notes statues of clay (1.2.5, dg^lmataek pelou; 1.3.1, agalmata optes ges); he usually (as far as we can tell)specifies if a statue is of gold and ivory (e.g. 1.20.3; 2.17.4; 2.27.2; at1.12.4 he discusses the history of ivory, basing his conclusions onHomer), and he also details several akroliths.25 So too on occasion hementions more unusual materials, such as the 'image (agalma) ofDionysos made of gypsum and painted' at Kreusis (9.32.1); or thesmall silver agalmata in the Tholos in the Agora of Athens (1.5.1); or agold agalma from Prokonnesos with a face made of hippopotamusteeth (8.46.4).

This interest extends to military equipment: he takes as confirmationof Homer's reports that 'weapons in the heroic age were all of bronze'the spear of Achilles which he saw at Phaselis and the sword ofMemnon which he saw at Nikomedia, since 'the blade and the spikeat the butt-end of the spear and the whole of the sword are of bronze'(3.3.8). Elsewhere, he details Sarmatian spears 'tipped with boneinstead of iron, their bows and arrows are of the cornel tree, and thebarbs of the arrows are of bone' (1.21.5), and goes on to note thematerials of corselets and their relative uses in battle and hunting.

While the foregoing examples appear to be remarked on byPausanias purely for their intrinsic interest, there may be moresignificance to a statue of Augustus he mentions in his description ofOlympia (5.12.7). It is made of amber, and he says 'native amber(electrum), of which the statue of Augustus is made, is found in thesands of the Eridanos, and is very rare and valuable for manypurposes; but the other electrum is an alloy of gold with silver'.Although it is unspoken, there may be a feeling of the appropriateness24 Of course, other writers also make reference to different marbles, but incidentally and

infrequently (Larsen (1938) 488-9 for some examples, but tellingly few).25 By 'akrolith' I mean the conventional designation of a wooden statue with extremities of

stone (usually marble). Examples in Pausanias include 1.40.4, 2.4.1, 6.24.6, 6.25.4, 723.5,8.25.6, 8.31.6, 9.4.1. At 7.26.4, he mentions a wooden statue with ivory extremities, and at3.22.7 an ivory head of Apollo, the only part remaining of a burnt statue-on the assumptionthat the statue was not entirely ivory, this may be another akrolith, or the rest may have beenclay and gypsum like the first example he gives at 1.40.4. At 4.31.11, he mentions an image ofgold and Parian marble, probably an akrolith using gilded wood (cf. 9.4.1). On the term'akrolith' in relation to xoanon, Donohue (1988) 141-2.

Pausanias on the past 53

of such 'rare and valuable5 material for a statue of an emperor, andperhaps of Augustus in particular.

Thus Pausanias showed considerable interest in the material of theobjects and buildings he saw. But a particular interest is reserved forwooden statues, even to the extent of noting the best preservative(9.41.7; cf. 1.15.4 on the use of pitch to preserve shields). These areimportant partly because our own lack of wooden artefacts leaves usmore than usually in his debt (and that of the other ancient sources),and partly because it is clear that in his mind there was a very realconnection between wood and antiquity (as there was in Vitruvius'mind for temples). This association is also clear from Pausanias'descriptions of objects other than statues: for example in the descriptionof the temple of Hera at Olympia, in the opisthodomos of which hesaw the one remaining wooden column, a survival from the earliestbuilding phase of the temple and the only one which had not yet beenreplaced in stone (5.16.1).26

Sometimes Pausanias makes a simple reference to wooden statues,27

sometimes he specifies the type of wood,28 and in his discussion of thestatue of Kyllenian Hermes which he saw on the summit of theeponymous mountain in Arkadia, he says 'the kinds of wood out ofwhich men of old made images for themselves were, so far as I havebeen able to learn, the following: ebony, cypress, the cedars, the oaks,yew and lotus', and adds that the Hermes is of juniper (8.17.2,omitting the pear-wood image noted, which was the 'most ancient'image of Hera).

The appearance of these statues was not always that of undisguisedpieces of wood: at Thebes he notes a log which had fallen fromheaven, adding that 'they say that Polydoros adorned this log withbronze, and called it Dionysos Kadmos' (9.12.4). Haynes calls this'an aniconic wooden fetish sheathed in bronze',29 but it is not possible26 Dinsmoor (1950) 54, pointing out that the use of wood in this case is not attributable to the

early date since stone temples had been built by this date. Coulton suggests that this was'probably a matter of economics' (Coulton (1977) 43), but if the evidence from fourth-centuryEpidauros is a guide, the difference in cost may have been small (Burford (1969) 177-9). Forpresent purposes, the important point is that the remaining wooden column would have beenseen as particularly old by Pausanias' time, simply by virtue of its being wooden. The samemay be applicable to the wooden decorations (Pmetopes) of the Epidamnian treasury atOlympia showing the exploits of Herakles (6.19.8, a corrupt passage). (The passageconcerning the wooden column at Olympia is omitted from Levi's translation.)

27 E.g. 7.5.9, 7.25.7, 8.37.12, 8.42.3, 8.46.3.28 Boxwood (6.19.6); cedarwood (5.17.5, 6.19.8, 6.19.12, 9.10.3); cypress (6.18.7); ebony

(1.35.3,1.42.5,2.22.5, and p. 57 below; 8.53.11); fig-wood (6.18.7); oak (5.16.1); pear (2.17.5).29 Haynes (1992) 12.

54 Pausanias on the past

to tell whether this was a bronze in the sphyrelaton technique (seebelow, pp. 71-2), with a wooden core (for which, Haynes observes,there is no surviving physical evidence, nor literary evidence bar thispassage), or whether the wooden image, unwrought in the manner ofthe argot lithoi discussed above, was in itself a cult object.

The disguising of wood more regularly took other forms: Pausaniassays that 'the Athenians are the only people whose wooden images ofEileithyia are draped to the tips of the feet' (1.18.5), perhapsconfirming what we would in any case suspect, that it was standardfor females to be draped. His reference to a 'naked Herakles' (2.4.5)implies that other wooden statues were clothed, but at Aigina he sawa naked wooden Apollo, and a clothed Artemis and Dionysos(2.30.i);30 and such was the swathing of the statue he saw at Titanethat 'it is impossible to learn of what wood or metal the image is made'(2.11.6). Such references as these are of great importance for cultpractices and the treatment of statues, although, of course, they neednot necessarily reflect the practices of the Archaic or Classical periods.

On other occasions, Pausanias refers to wooden statues in contextswhich make clear, or at least suggest, that he sees their antiquity asderiving at least in part from the fact of their being wooden. The keyword in Pausanias' usage is xoanon, of which A. A. Donohue observesthat it 'is equivalent to the phrase £uAou ayaAjjia'.31 As Donohuepoints out, 'Pausanias does not say that all xoana are old, but ratherthat in early times all statuary was made in wood'.32 There is muchevidence in Pausanias to bear this out (there is, in fact, no case wherehe uses xoanon of a statue which is provably not wooden33), and toillustrate further his view of antiquity when some of the contexts inwhich he uses the word are examined.30 This Dionysos is bearded, but in Aigion he saw a beardless Dionysos and two representations

of Zeus, one bearded and one not, of which 'the beardless one seemed to me the older of thetwo' (7.23.9). While beardlessness is not explicitly stated as his chronological determinanthere, it seems most likely that it is so.

31 On xoana, Donohue (1988); the quotation is from p. 140. Also, Papadopoulos (1980) 15-63.32 Donohue (1988) 146.33 Gardner suggested that there were three occasions on which other writers used xoanon to

indicate an object not made of wood (Xen. Anab. 5.3.12, Euripides Troades 1074, and Strabo9.1.17; Gardner (1890) 133-4). However, in the first case, the point is one of contrastbetween a wooden and a gold statue, rather than one of comparison of like objects. In thesecond example, it is likely that an ideal and splendid vision of an imagined heroic past isbeing summoned, complete with imagined golden xoana. In the third example, Strabo refersto the fifth-century marble cult statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous as a xoanon; this cannot be amistake or misinterpretation, and I wonder whether it can be attributed to Strabo's notbeing such a regular commentator on statuary, in contrast to the practised use of vocabularyby Pausanias.

Pausanias on the past 55

For example, in his description of Argos he mentions a temple ofWolf Apollo, and explains that 'the temple and the xoanon werededicated by Danaos; for I am persuaded that in those days (tote) theywere all xoana, especially the Egyptian ones' (2.19.3; that Pausaniaswas confident he knew how to recognize an Egyptian statue is clearfrom 7.5.5). With the mention of Danaos, we are in the world oflegendary figures, and there is also implicit in the word tote anall-embracing approach to 'the past'.34

How these factors relate to Pausanias' view of the past is discussedbelow, but what is important to note here is the association of aparticular medium — wood — with that past. This association is a, ifnot the, major reason for the use of wood in sanctuaries, which wereareas of particular reverence and which, as noted, were the mainconcern of Pausanias. To that extent, we must be wary of circularityof argument, since some objects (wooden ones above all) owed theirpresence in the sanctuary to their being perceived as antique, and arethen perceived as antique because they are in the sanctuary. Thisprocess of thought and selection would contribute to the lack ofinterest shown by Pausanias in modern objects. In so far as he isillustrating that the antiquity of wood governs its use at sanctuaries,Pausanias is only reflecting the standard view.

Although the association of wood with antiquity is not alwaysmade explicit, it is a reasonable inference that it lies behind most, ifnot all, of the references to wooden statues.35 Sometimes thisassociation is made by linking the wooden statue with a legendaryfigure, as in the case of Danaos or when Pausanias mentions 'awooden Hermes, said to be an offering of Kekrops' in the shrine ofAthena Polias on the Akropolis of Athens (1.27.1).

Kekrops was traditionally the first king of Athens, and one of theKleisthenic ten tribal heroes of Athens.36 He was also a key figure inthe acquisition by Athena of the Akropolis in the face of oppositionfrom Poseidon (the continuation of this passage is discussed below,p. 70-1 ).37 The statue is thus associated with one of the very earliest34 There is also the added factor of the antiquity associated with Egypt (e.g. Hdt. Bk. 2), and the

cachet value of such an association.35 Since my primary concern is with Pausanias' references to wood, I am not here concerned

with the belief expressed by Donohue (1988) 140 that Pausanias' use of the word xoanon was'out of step' with that of his contemporaries because he used it to mean only wooden images ofgods; this position is disputed by Stewart (1990b). Also, Sourvinou-Inwood (1990).

36 Kron (1976) 84-103.37 Apollodoros, Library 3.14.1; Callimachus, Iambi fr. 194.66-8 and Hekale fr. 260.24-6; Arafat

156-9.

56 Pausanias on the past

phases of Athenian history; the fact that it is wooden reinforces itsantiquity (a comparable example is the xoanon which was made byPolyidos for the sanctuary of Dionysos at Megara (1.43.5); see below,P- 66).

In his description of the Argive Heraion, Pausanias first mentionstwo gold and ivory statues, then can ancient image {agalma) of Hera'(2.17.5) of unspecified material, though not gold and ivory as it isdistinguished from the other two statues and it is set on a pillar; thevagueness of the phrase is to an extent qualified by what follows: 'hermost ancient image (archaiotaton [sc. agalma]) is made of the wood ofthe wild pear-tree; it was dedicated in Tiryns by Peirasos son of Argos;and when the Argives destroyed Tiryns they brought the agalma to theHeraion. It is a small seated agalma: I saw it myself.'38 Again, anextant statue is associated with a legendary figure, in this case the sonof the eponymous founder of Argos. This particular example is givenspice by Pausanias' expressed belief that 'of all the Greeks it is theArgives who most dispute the claim of the Athenians to antiquity(archaiotes) and to the possession of gifts of the gods' (1.14.2).39

Naturally, the first artists made wooden statues, such as that ofHerakles from the sanctuary of Athena Chalinites at Corinth byDaidalos, traditionally the first artist (2.4.5; Daidalos is discussedbelow, pp. 67-74). Indeed, it is in speaking of Daidalos thatPausanias twice explicitly connects wooden statues with antiquity:first, he says that 'the residence of Daidalos in Knossos, at the court ofMinos, conferred on the Cretans for a long time a reputation for themaking of xoana" (8.53.8). The link of Daidalos with Crete throughKing Minos is narrated by several authors including Pausanias.40

This link in itself suggests great antiquity, as is evident from otherreferences to Crete, as, for example, at Megara, where 'the circuit ofthe ancient wall had been pulled down by the Cretans' (1.41.6).Secondly, writing of a festival held at Plataiai (mentioned also byPlutarch (see above, p. 23 n.57), Pausanias says 'they celebrate afestival called Daidala because people long ago called xoana daidala"(9.3.2),41 and he adds his own view on statuary before Daidalos' dayby saying 'I believe that they called them so even before Daidalos . . .38 Smallness was not a necessary feature of wooden statues (e.g. 7.5.9; Donohue (1988) 141).39 On the particular role of cult in the establishment of Argos' supremacy in the plain, Morgan

and Whitelaw (1991).40 7.4.4-5; also, Diodorus Siculus 4.77-9, Strabo 6.2.6, Herodotos 7.170. On the literary and

archaeological evidence for the tradition surrounding Daidalos, Arafat (1990b) 52-3.41 On the textual problem at 9.3.7, but not affecting the present point, Dillon (1993).

Pausanias on the past 57

was born . . . and I think that Daidalos was a surname subsequentlygiven to him from the daidala, and not a name bestowed on him atbirth'.42 Long before Pausanias, the name Daidalos had come tomean 'cleverly wrought', and the subsequent use of the name has animmediate association of quality and antiquity.

Later generations of artists also made wooden statues: Dipoinosand Skyllis, traditionally pupils (or even sons) of Daidalos, madeebony statues ('with a little ivory') for the shrine of the Dioskouroi atArgos (2.22.5; for Dipoinos and Skyllis, see below, pp. 71—3). Theascription of wooden statues to later generations of artists raises thequestion of how late Pausanias thought wood was used for statuary,an issue with obvious relevance to the apparent association of woodwith antiquity.

Named artists of a period which is identifiable precisely by us alsomade wooden statues, but at the same time it is important toremember that they were in all probability classed as 'ancient' byPausanias. Examples include one at Aigina: 'the xoanon is a work byMyron' (2.30.2).43 Again, at Troizen, the shrine of Athena Sthenis:'the xoanon of the goddess is by Kallon of Aigina' (2.32.5). Theepigraphic interpretation of the inscription naming Kallon on thebase of another statue gives a date of c.500 BG.

Although many works cannot be precisely dated, it appears thatthe word archaios is not used of any work later than, approximately,the early fifth century. This is noted by Pollitt44 in his discussion of theword, but while he is right that the word 'could be used to describeworks of art dating from anywhere between the remote, legendarypast and the Early Classical period', this should not, I suggest, betaken to mean that Pausanias did not attempt to explore the divisionswithin that period.

Attributes

Another criterion used by Pausanias in attempting to date an object isany attribute it might have. For example, he describes a statue byKleon of Sikyon of the athlete Hysmon of Elis at Olympia as having'ancient (archaioi) jumping weights' (6.3.10). He does not give the

42 On this passage, Morris (1992) 55-6.43 This is presumably the fifth-century sculptor of the Diskobolos rather than the possible

Hellenistic sculptor of the same name; Ridgway (1970) 84-6, 131.44 Pollitt (1974) 156.

58 Pausanias on the past

date of the statue, but he mentions the artist elsewhere in afourth-century context (5.17.3, 5.21.3).45 However, this leaves openthe question of what archaioi means: clearly, its meaning depends onwhether the weights looked archaioi in the second century AD, orwhether they did so in the fourth century BG. Pausanias does not makethis clear, and we can but speculate.46

This also applies to his description of another athlete statue atOlympia, that of Damaretos who won in the sixty-fifth Olympiad (i.e.516 BG): 'his statue (andrias) has not only a shield, as the armedrunners still have, but also a helmet on his head and greaves on hislegs. In course of time the wearing of helmet and greaves in the racewas abolished both by the Eleans and by the rest of the Greeks'(6.10.4). Although Pausanias names the sculptors of the statues of hisfather and grandfather who are part of the same group, he gives nohint of the date of the sculptures. It may well be legitimate to assumethat the statue would date from soon after the victory, but this is oflimited consequence for present purposes, since the important point isthat Pausanias recognizes that the 'attributes' of the athlete mark thestatue as of a certain period; in this, he is using the visual evidence ofthe details of the statue in conjunction with the epigraphic evidence ofthe inscription (which, in fact, pertains to the statues of the father andgrandfather). What makes these examples significant is that Pausaniasis remarking on a juxtaposition of old and new elements, furtherrefining his dating criteria.47

Finally, it should be remembered that such attributes as jumpingweights and shields would be among those more readily accessible tothe average visitor to the sanctuary, exhibiting objective and widelyknown criteria for dating, and that they would not have the mystiqueof less immediately comprehensible works.

TERMINOLOGY

Having considered Pausanias' main criteria for singling out asculpture as 'ancient', the question arises of what he means by'ancient', or 'very ancient'. He had a sense of the complexities of45 As Levi notes ((1971) 2.248 n.165), these references put him near either end of the fourth

century; but this complication is not relevant here.46 An athlete from Mende was also portrayed at Olympia with ancient jumping weights

(5.27.12) but his date is unknown.47 Contemporary archaizing in architecture is discussed by Spawforth and Walker (1986)

100-1, 104.

Pausanias on the past 59

dating, exemplified by his study of the dates of Homer and Hesiod(see above, p. 45; whether or not we believe his claim, the very factthat he makes it shows this to be true).

He also has a sense of prehistory, revealed by his statement,apropos of the legendary expedition of the Seven against Thebes, thatit was 'the most memorable of all the wars carried on by Greeksagainst Greeks in what they call the heroic age' (9.9.1). This sense ofprehistory is shared also by Thucydides who asks how far we can goback in seeking the causes of events (above all, present events).Although Thucydides goes back a long way, he confesses that T havefound it impossible, because of its remoteness in time, to acquire areally precise knowledge of the distant past or even of the historypreceding our own period' (1.1; tr. R. Warner [Penguin edn]).

Because Thucydides lacked written accounts, not only was theevidence available to him considerably diminished, but he also lackedan absolute chronological standard. Under such circumstances,perceptions of what constitutes 'the past' are likely to vary moreaccording to context. Indeed, perceptions of the past are necessarilydifferent in societies without widespread literacy; it is easy to overestimatethe extent of literacy, but important not to, since the oral traditionoperates within a different understanding of the past.48 The examplescited show a sense (although not an explicit statement) of twocategories of the past: a recorded past and a past before that.

For Pausanias, the 'heroic age' is characterized by a sense ofsomething different; a sense that things were not done in the sameway and, for him, were not made in the same way. I have discussedhow Pausanias saw objects as made differently; I now consider howelse he thought art differed in the 'heroic age'.

One theme which runs through much Greek writing and on intoRoman, is that of the Golden Age, when men were stronger and lifewas simpler. Elements of this are seen in literature, beginning withHomer (e.g. in the description of the cup of Nestor (//. 11.632-7; cf.1.260—8) or of Odysseus' bow that only he could string (Od. 21).

This theme is apparent in Pausanias also, and is an integral part ofthe subject under discussion. The size of the wall blocks at Tiryns ischaracterized as Cyclopean: 'each stone so large that a pair of mulescould not even stir the smallest of them' (2.25.8). Interestingly,Pausanias on one occasion combines this sense of a past where48 See the contrasting views of Goody (1977); Goody and Watt (1968); Harris (1989); Thomas

(1992), (1989); Harvey (1966); Cartledge (1978).

60 Pausanias on the past

superhuman deeds, such as those of Odysseus or the Cyclopes, werecommon with his interest in statuary, specifically statuary that was inhis terms ancient: in his description of Phokis, he says 'in the territoryof Magnesia, on the river Lethaios, there is a place called Hylai,where is a grotto consecrated to Apollo. There is nothing verywonderful in the size of the grotto, but the image (agalma) of Apollo isvery old (ta malista archaion) and it imparts strength equal to anylabour. Men sacred to the god leap down precipices and high rocks,tear exceedingly lofty trees from their roots, and walk with theirburdens along the narrowest footpaths' (10.32.6).

Although the theme of supernatural strength is associated with the'heroic age', athletic bombast lies behind its appearance in aninscription on a stone found at Olympia weighing over 140 kg. whichone Bybon claims to have thrown over his head with one hand.49 Thisdates from the early Archaic period, which to us is significantly laterthan the 'heroic age' associated in our minds with the world before,and reflected in, Homer; however, it will become clear from furtherconsideration of Pausanias' use of the words 'ancient' and 'veryancient' that for him, the definition of'ancient' would not have beenso refined as to distinguish between the 'heroic age' and the seventh orsixth century. In this context, athletics constituted the main link withheroism, exemplified by Herakles himself, the founder of the Olympicgames who was responsible for first arranging the games and callingthem Olympian (5.7.9). There is in athletics a 'heroic dimension'which is constantly present and can be tapped into, so that one canlink oneself to the heroic past by one's behaviour.

Herodotos also has a sense of a heroic age, linked to the present bymeans of such events as the Trojan war which are seen as directpredecessors of the current wars. Herodotos' discussion of the careerof Kroisos may be seen as his starting-point for his narration of thesequence of events leading to the present (1.6). Similarly, Thucydideslinks the past and present by using the Trojan war as a standard bywhich to judge the Peloponnesian war (1.10).

In the same way, Pausanias shows an awareness of the past (by histime, of course, a much longer past than that conceived of byHerodotos some six hundred years earlier), but at the same time he isaware of his limitations in defining that past and assigning particularpieces to it in anything other than the most general way. A rare49 Dittenberger and Purgold (1896) 723-8 no. 717. The inscription is dated to the seventh

century by Fellman (1972) 127 no. 117; to the early sixth century by Karageorgia-Stathakopoulou (1976) 255; to the middle of the sixth century by Harris (1972) 142.

Pausanias on the past 61

example of his linking a sculptor with an historical event occurs in apassage on Olympia where he is discussing a statue of Herakles and anAmazon made by one Aristokles of Kydonia and dedicated byEuagoras of Zankle: 'Aristokles may be reckoned among the mostancient sculptors: his exact date cannot be given, but clearly he livedbefore Zankle got its present name of Messene' (5.25.n). This is areasonable inference by Pausanias, not from the style or workmanshipof the statue, but from the wording of the dedicatory inscription,which referred to the artist as being from Zankle rather than Messene.Herodotos (7.164) and Thucydides (6.4) date the change of namefrom Zankle to Messene at 494 BG, although whether or not Pausaniaswas aware of this date is not made clear. However, he placesAristokles before then without any further attempt at closer dating;this shows him trying to narrow down the date, almost apologetic fornot being able to do so, but still finding the past (in this case, theperiod before the change of name) hard to comprehend and to divide.

On a few occasions Pausanias makes explicit his reasoning for hisbelief that a particular statue is of some antiquity: for example, in hisdescription of Arkadia, he says 'in the market place at Phigaleia thereis a statue (andrias) of Arrachion the pankratiast. The statue is archaic(archaios), especially in its attitude, for the feet are not muchseparated, and the arms hang down by the side to the hips' (8.40.1).This is clearly a description of a kouros, one of the earliest forms ofstone statue, but one which continues into the early fifth century.50 Inthis particular case, there is additional evidence in that the nameArrachion is known from the Olympic victor lists, where his victory isdated to 564 BG, suggesting a contemporary date for the statue.Unfortunately, surviving kouroi from Phigaleia cannot be firmlyassociated with this one.51 This example illustrates that, as Frazer's

50 Richter (1970).51 Richter (1970) 77. Ridgway's view that the word andrias suggests 'a carved, most likely

wooden, image' (Ridgway (1993) 22) is contradicted by the inscription on the base of a stonekouros from Delos of the first quarter of the sixth century (Richter (1970) 51-3, no. 15, figs.87-90; Jeffery (1990) 292, 304 no. 10 pi.55). Further, Ridgway's view would only be tenablein the case of Arrachion if his statue were wooden, in which case Pausanias would almostcertainly have said so. Levi translates the word andrias as 'portrait-statue', perhaps anacknowledgement of an unusual word (rather than agalma); the word is not in Pollitt'sglossary, but Stewart (1979) 9, 38, 109, discusses its use in relation to Classical and Hellenisticsculpture. Pausanias saw the identifying inscription and may have thought the statue a literalportrait of Arrachion, a reasonable view of a contemporary representation of a still-livingmortal. The andrias of Damaretos (see above, p. 58) may have been bronze, which would bethe most natural medium in which to represent armour, including greaves; the verb is used inconnection with the statue, as it is with that of his grandson, leaving the question open. Levi'stranslation in the second instance as 'carved' is unjustified.

62 Pausanias on the past

translation 'archaic' suggests, and as Pollitt52 points out, 'like ourword Archaic, apxouos connoted not only the date of a work of art butalso its style'.

On further occasions, Pausanias expresses his interest in theattribution of a work to a particular sculptor: in a passage concernedwith two statues, at Branchidai and at Thebes, he says 'whoever hasseen one of these two images (agalmata), and learned the artist's name,needs no great sagacity to perceive when he sees the other, that it toois a work of Kanachos' (9.10.2). Again, in describing dedications ofthe Akragantines at Olympia, he says 'I guessed that they were worksof Kalamis', and then adds 'and the tradition agreed with my guess'(5-25-5)-

The implication of this passage is that he came to his own stylisticjudgement, and made his own attribution. Although Pausanias'origins and the connoisseurship of his day must have had a considerableeffect on his thoughts, it is interesting that not only does he know of'those who have made a special study of the history of the sculptors'(5.20.2), but that he knows their works well enough to assert that heknows of a sculptor they have overlooked, namely Anaxagoras ofAigina (5.23.3). One might object that he may in fact have simplyread the inscription and looked up the name in the index of asculptural handbook, but on several other occasions (as, for example,in discussing the work of Kalamis just mentioned), his knowledge issufficient to allow an independent stylistic judgement; in either case,the point of his familiarity with sculptural writings remains valid. Thewriters of such works may be contemporary or of previous generations,or both; certainly in the latter case, they would have had theadvantage of access not only to more originals, but also to writtenworks such as Polykleitos' canon.53 By Pausanias' time, the practice ofcollecting Greek sculptures and making copies of those one could notcollect was well established.54 It is by such means as these thatsomeone of Pausanias' date could have become acquainted with thestyles and careers of Greek sculptors in the sort of detail that is evidentfrom the discussion in the course of which the students of'the historyof the sculptors' are mentioned (5.20.1—2), where the main issue iswhether Kolotes was from Herakleia or Paros.

Pausanias was, of course, an inveterate traveller, as the verywriting of his book shows, and his personal acquaintance with the

52 Pollitt (1974) 157. 53 Stewart (1978). 54 Ridgway (1984); Bieber (1977).

Pausanias on the past 63

sites and monuments he describes is beyond dispute, and would havebeen a critical factor in enabling him to make the stylistic judgementnecessary to ascribe a statue to a specific named sculptor.

Another example of Pausanias' own judgement of a statue, in thiscase one he classes as archaios, occurs in his description of Aigeira:'there is an archaion xoanon there . . . none of the natives could tell thesculptor's name; but anyone who has seen the Herakles at Sikyonwould infer that the Apollo at Aigeira is a work of the same artist,Laphaes of Phlious' (7.26.6). In contrast to the previous example, thisshows Pausanias consulting local opinion (and then making up hisown mind). Laphaes also occurs in Pausanias' description of Corinth,where there was a xoanon archaion by him (2.10.1).

What we have, then, is an awareness of the past largely in veryspecific terms, a named sculptor or an established style that can beassociated with a named sculptor. Pliny's practice of dating sculptorsby Olympiads indicates a similar degree of confidence in dating. Withthis background, the phraseology used by Pausanias in assessingantiquity can be examined more closely.

At the simplest level, antiquity is a matter of what is older: intalking of Megara, Pausanias cites a statue of Aphrodite Praxis,saying it is 'the oldest (archaiotaton) in the temple' (1.43.6). The otherstatues in the shrine are by several famous fourth-century sculptors;but this gives us only the most general chronological framework.Further stages back in Pausanias' conception of the structure of thepast are revealed by some of his ascriptions of works to ancient figures.Often these ascriptions are marked by a note of doubt: this doubt isless that of the well-educated, widely travelled second-century ADtraveller than that of a man exercising that selectivity which was oneof his most noticeable characteristics.

An example of a comparable ascription which Pausanias didbelieve shows this selectivity working to discriminate between a groupof objects supposed to be of the same origin: 'the god whom theChaironeans honour most is the sceptre which Homer says Hephaistosmade for Zeus, and Zeus gave Hermes; and Hermes to Pelops, andPelops bequeathed to Atreus; and Atreus to Thyestes, from whomAgamemnon had it . . . of all the objects which poets have declaredand obsequious public opinion has believed to be works of Hephaistos,none is genuine save the sceptre of Agamemnon' (9.40.11-41.1).

In the course of this narrative, Pausanias details two other objectsreputed to be by Hephaistos, a bronze urn at Patara and a chest in

64 Pausanias on the past

Patrai, but he denies the authenticity of both; his grounds for doing soare that the urn is made in a technique which was invented later, bythe Samian artists Theodoros and Rhoikos (see below, p. 72), andthat the chest is never put on show. This reinforces two importantpoints already made: the rejection of the urn shows how Pausaniassaw technique as a chronological marker (not an infallible one, andnot one he used infallibly, as shown by his mention of a chronologicallyimprobable bronze statue of Kylon (1.28.1)); and the chest showshow much store he set by autopsy of an object. The failure to displaythe chest would also strike Pausanias as suspicious because a citywould be expected to put on show something as old as it was claimedto be, so that there was something suspect in keeping it hidden. Thisreinforces the point that the idea of appropriateness was an importantone for Pausanias and for the display of objects.

This passage shows how Pausanias expresses belief in the staff as anauthentic work of Hephaistos; and it also shows that he is aware of thedangers of such attribution and does not agree with it unthinkingly.Similarly, he cautiously prefaces his report that a statue of Apollowhich he saw near Korone was dedicated by the Argonauts with 'theysay' (4.34.7). But a further point must be extracted from this instance,and is not dependent on Pausanias' opinion of whether a specificobject is authentic: he has no doubt that the gods made works, andthat such works can survive to his day. Perhaps it is an exaggeration tosay 'the gods' since Pausanias is here dealing with the patron god ofcraftsmen; but the fact of belief in the reality of the manufacture ofobjects by a god is established nevertheless. This is a vital point todetermine, since it is an unstated contributory factor to his broad viewof the past. The past is continuous, but there are certain features of thepast (such as heroes or great leaders) which are more relevant toparticular aspects of present circumstances.

For the modern commentator, the mythical or legendary figures ofsuch works as those of Homer or the tragedians people that world ofthe period before history from which Greek art and literature drewsuch inspiration from the early Archaic period onwards. In Pausanias'writings, there appears to be no explicit distinction between thegeneration of the gods and that of the heroes. And he has no hesitationin attributing surviving works to heroic or legendary figures. Forexample, at Megara, he talks of Demeter's hall which 'they say thatKar built when he was king' (1.40.6). Similarly, also at Megara,Pausanias details several levels of antiquity: of the memorial over the

Pausanias on the past 65

grave of Koroibos he says 'these are the most ancient Greek images instone (agalmata palaiotata) that I have seen' (1.43.8). As noted (seeabove, p. 56), at Megara 'the circuit of the ancient wall had beenpulled down by the Cretans' (1.41.6), and Alkathous built shrines there.

The association of particular buildings or objects with legendary ormythical individuals is in evidence elsewhere: the example of Danaoshas been cited above. In Sparta, 'Odysseus is said to have set up[Athena's] image (agalma) and named her Goddess of Paths after hehad vanquished the wooers of Penelope in the race' (3.12.4); nearSparta, an image (agalma) of Modesty was 'said to be an offering ofIkarios' (Penelope's father, 3.20.10); at Thebes, 'they say that theimage (agalma) [of Athena] was set up by Kadmos' (9.12.2), andPausanias saw 'wooden images (xoana)55 of Aphrodite at Thebes soancient that they are said to have been dedicated by Harmonia, andto have been made out of the wooden figure-heads of Kadmos' ships'(9.16.3); and at a sanctuary of Eileithyia in Athens, 'the women saidthat two of these images were Cretan, dedicated by Phaedra, but thatthe oldest was brought by Erysichthon from Delos' (1.18.5; the firstpart of this passage is discussed above); at Amphissa, 'they say thatthe image was brought by Thoas from Ilion, and was part of theTrojan spoils; but they did not convince me' (10.38.5; also, see below,p. 72).56

These examples have been enumerated at length in order toemphasize the frequency with which Pausanias exercised his ownjudgement, but not to the point of excluding the reports and beliefs ofothers - indeed, phrases such as 'it is said' occur frequently. Suchinstances, therefore, show him as a neutral observer as well as a manwith opinions which he does not simply state, but makes a case for. Asa secondary advantage, phrases like 'it is said' may reiterate to thereader that Pausanias has diligently undertaken research, which he isable to combine with his own observations and opinions in reachinghis conclusions.55 In this case, the translation 'wooden images' for xoana is justified by the explicit reference to

'wooden figure-heads'.56 Jacob (1980) 81 and (i 980-1) 52, lists some of the objects associated with legendary

characters, or of other legendary origin (including some of those discussed here) but,crucially, omits 'they say' and similar phrases. Thus he refers to the statues made fromKadmos' ships. So too the flutes of Marsyas, but apparently confusing 2.7.5 a n d 2.7.9, whichin fact show that the flutes which 'they say' had been dedicated, had in fact been destroyed byPausanias' day (the same two points also apply to Meleager's spear in the same passage, alsocited by Jacob). The same element of doubt is expressed by Pausanias in his account of thedice of Palamedes (2.20.3), but is again omitted by Jacob.

66 Pausanias on the past

The most extended example of this is in his discussion of thesanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta (3.16.7—11). Reporting that'the wooden image is said to be the famous one which Orestes andIphigeneia once stole from the Tauric land', Pausanias disbelievesthis because it differs from the Athenian version of the story, which hefinds more credible for reasons which he explains. This comparison oflocal stories is characteristic of that interest in, and stress on, localelements which was discussed in the introductory chapter, and itagain shows Pausanias' own research.

While still within the legendary or mythical, different buildings ormonuments are ascribed to different phases of that period: at Megara,'Telamon, son of Aiakos, married Periboia daughter of Alkathous. Iapprehend, therefore, that Ajax, having succeeded Alkathous in thekingdom, made the image (agalma) of Athena' (1.42.4; the statue wasan akrolith of gilded wood and ivory). Again at Megara, 'beside theentrance to the sanctuary of Dionysos is the grave of Astykrateia andManto. They were daughters of Polyidos, the great-grandson ofMelampous, who came to Megara to purify Alkathous after themurder of his son Kallipolis. Polyidos built the sanctuary to Dionysosand dedicated a xoanon, which in our time is hidden except the face,the only visible part of it' (1.43.5; s e e above, p. 56).

I have quoted these examples at some length because they illustrateseveral important points: not only is Pausanias dealing with legendaryfigures, and indeed, in the case of the wall at Megara, with theCretans who are earlier than any of them, but he is dealing withseveral generations of them. It is clear on many occasions thatPausanias' best way of establishing a sequence is through genealogy,whether lineal or artistic (the technique previously employed aproposof art by Pliny, who also used Olympiads to structure his narrative).In other words, he is more often attempting to establish a relativechronology than an absolute chronology. This approach has a longand distinguished history, since it was used in Hesiod's Theogony andCatalogue of Women, in Hekataios' Genealogiai, and by Thucydides inhis explication of the foundation dates of the western Greek colonies(6.1-5)-

Thus antiquity in the sense of prehistory is not one amorphousentity in Pausanias' view but layered and structured, peopled withheroes but, crucially, with several generations of heroes, giving it arelative chronology, however remote and imprecise it may be inabsolute terms. Furthermore, it is clear that Pausanias was aware of

Pausanias on the past 67

the problem of early chronology and had given it much thought,perhaps most strikingly in the passage briefly cited (above, p. 45, withcaveat): 'though I have investigated very carefully the dates of Hesiodand Homer, I do not want to state my results, knowing as I do thecarping disposition of some people, especially of the professors ofpoetry at the present day' (9.30.3).

Frazer's 'professors of poetry' is more interpretation than translation,'poetry' being too broad a rendering of epos which refers rather to thestyle of poetry exemplified by, above all, Hesiod and Homer; thus, thephrase is appropriately used here by Pausanias. Nonetheless, Frazer'sinterpretation serves aptly to emphasize that Pausanias was aneducated man living in an age of textual critics, of questionsconcerning the authenticity of Homer and Hesiod, to which he couldhave contributed his own views if he had wished, as this passagemakes clear. Knowledge of Homer in particular was one of thefundamental principles of second-century education, and it may bethat Pausanias has in mind here the sophists from whom I havedistanced him in the previous chapter; if so, this is further justificationfor seeing him as distinct from that school. Even if he did not havethem specifically in mind he is standing apart from the academicfencing that must have characterized the activities of many of hiscontemporaries. In this era, every educated person could be expectedto have a view on the great issues of Homeric scholarship, but howmany would have shied away from public debating?57 It is notsurprising that Pausanias' evident curiosity and strongly held viewsconcerning the writers and figures of the remote past should spill overinto his commentary on the artefacts of the remote past.

Thus far the discussion has been concerned with Pausanias' view oflegendary figures and the objects they made or were associated with.From legendary figures a short and readily available step takes us tolegendary artists. As the examples given below indicate, works areoften attributed to such artists; this is often another manifestation ofthat common desire for aprotos heuretes discussed above in the contextof technical developments (see above, p. 46). The most famous ofthese legendary figures was Daidalos, an Athenian traditionallyregarded by later generations as the first artist.58

57 Anderson discusses the interest in Homer as typical of the period and his role as the basis ofeducation, and details 'the questions of Homeric scholarship' standardly treated; interestingly,the date of Homer is not among them (Anderson (1993) 69-85, 174-6, esp. 174).

58 In general, Morris (1992), esp. 246-51 on Pausanias and Daidalos.

68 Pausanias on the past

Pausanias' account of the life and travels of Daidalos is given in thecontext of his description of Samos: 'that this sanctuary is at all eventsone of the oldest in existence may be inferred especially from theimage (agalma), for it is a work (ergon) of an Aiginetan, Smilis . .. ThisSmilis was a contemporary of Daidalos, though he did not equal himin renown' (7.4.4). Pausanias mentions several works by Daidalos: hespeaks of a work of Daidalos in the same context as the Trojan war:'when Troy was taken and the Greeks were dividing the spoils, thexoanon of Zeus of the Courtyard was given to Sthenelos, son ofKapaneus. And many years afterwards, when the Dorians weremigrating into Sicily, Antiphemos the founder of Gela sackedOmphake, a town of the Sikanians, and carried off to Gela an image(agalma) which had been made by Daidalos' (8.46.2).

In Corinth, 'the sanctuary of Athena Chalinites is beside thetheatre and near it is a naked xoanon of Herakles; they say it is a workof Daidalos. The works of Daidalos are somewhat uncouth (atopotera)to the eye, but there is a touch of the divine (ti. . . entheon) in them forall that' (2.4.5). Habicht says that the phrase 'a touch of the divine'shows that 'Pausanias has the discernment, despite the sculpture'slack of elegance and refinement, to recognize a kind of sublimeinspiration and to value that'.59 Sarah Morris' interpretation is moreprosaic: 'it . . . reveals the postclassical antiquarian . . . Thispronouncement tells us almost nothing about the appearance of thestatues, except that they looked unusual by Roman standards andthat Pausanias sprang to their defense', and she draws the conclusionthat 'he had heard or read enough about Daidalos to develop someexpectations about his art . . . hence his disappointment upon firstseeing the artist's work.'60

Both these interpretations are correct, that of Habicht in aPausanian context and that of Morris in the context of the art which isher concern. But it is also justifiable to give more emphasis to thestrength of ti. . . entheon: the phrase should be taken with de ('but') toindicate that the works possess divinity despite their 'somewhatuncouth' appearance. This divinity derives instead from their antiquity,of which the association with Daidalos is the best indication.

Pausanias uses a very similar phrase when he says that 'there isnothing on which the blessing of God rests in so full a measure as therites of Eleusis and the Olympic games' (5.10.1, malista . . . metestin ek

59 Habicht (1985) 131. 60 Morris (1992) 248.

Pausanias on the past 69

theou phrontidos)\ although no reason for this opinion is given, theantiquity of the mysteries and the games may safely be inferred tohave been a significant reason (further, see below, p. 99).

While Pausanias expresses doubts over the attribution of thisparticular statue to Daidalos, he has no doubt that he has seen worksof Daidalos, indeed enough works to know his style - that is clear notleast from his saying of a sanctuary of Herakles at Thebes that thexoanon 'is believed by the Thebans to be by Daidalos, and that was myimpression too' (9.11.4; further, 'it is said' that it was also dedicatedby Daidalos).61 In fact, as is his practice with other sculptors, he doesnot list the criteria by which he attributes a work to Daidalos;however, he mentions that they are atopotera; and he often remarksthat they are wooden (indeed, Pliny (JVH 7.198) claimed thatDaidalos invented woodworking). While the implications of atopoteraare not made explicit, the word suggests compatibility with thatsimplicity which was noted earlier in this discussion as being one ofPausanias' hallmarks of antiquity; the same is applicable to thechosen medium, wood.

Among the works of Daidalos which Pausanias refers to is one seenonly by people consulting the oracle of Trophonios in the sacred woodat Lebadeia: they look at 'the image (agalma) which they say Daidalosmade (it is not shown by the priests except to such as are about to visitTrophonios)' (9.39.8). Although it is not made explicit, it may well bethat the association with Daidalos, and thereby the antiquity of thestatue, was important in the context of the ritual of a long-establishedoracle. Although Pausanias here expresses doubt over the attribution,he goes on to be more positive: 'of the works (erga) of Daidalos thereare two in Boiotia, Herakles at Thebes and Trophonios at Lebadeia'(9.40.3). He continues with a list of Daidalos' known works: 'there aretwo other images (xoana) by him in Crete, a Britomartis at Olous andAthena at Knossos . . . At Delos there is a small xoanon of Aphrodite . . .instead of feet the lower end of the image is square. I am persuadedthat Ariadne received this image (agalma) from Daidalos, and took itwith her from home when she followed Theseus; and the Delians saythat when Theseus was bereft of Ariadne, he dedicated the image(xoanon) of the goddess to Delian Apollo . . . I know no other extantworks of Daidalos.'

There is, then, no doubt for Pausanias of the veracity of Daidalos'

61 Morris (1992) 192—3 discusses this passage but with no reference to the phrase 'it is said'.

70 Pausanias on the past

existence and of some of his works, and this last example shows anexplicit link between Daidalos and the contemporary mythicalfigures of Theseus and Ariadne; Oedipus, too, was a contemporary ofDaidalos (i0.17.4). Pausanias is, however, sceptical to varyingdegrees about other works supposedly by Daidalos.62

Morris rightly observes that Daidalos is 'largely a literary creation,with a biography embroidered in classical and later periods'.63 Hisappearances in Roman imperial writings are largely bound by therules of contemporary literary conventions, such as those enjoined bythe late third-century/early fourth-century Menander Rhetor, whoseSminthiac Oration details how one should undertake an ekphrasis of astatue, including among the elaborate claims that can be made forany given statue an attribution to Daidalos {On Epideictic 445.15-19)64.While Pausanias does indeed mention attributions of works toDaidalos, his scepticism over some of them (as at 9.39.8) is theantithesis of the conventional ascriptions characteristic of the writersofekphraseis.65 While the literary aspect must have formed a backgroundto Daidalos' appearances in Pausanias' text, his autopsy and scepticismare far greater influences, and again show Pausanias' writings asdistinct from the conventions of his era.

Another notable work by Daidalos which Pausanias saw was afolding stool on the Athenian Akropolis (1.27.1; also, see above,p. 55-6). This is particularly interesting because of the context: 'inthe temple of the Polias is a wooden Hermes, said to be an offering ofKekrops . . . among the ancient offerings (archaia) which are worthy ofmention is a folding chair made by Daidalos and spoils taken from theMedes, including the corselet of Masistios, who commanded thecavalry at Plataiai, and a sword said to be that of Mardonios'. HerePausanias brackets as archaia a work by Daidalos and spoils from thePersian wars, much as he has previously bracketed Daidalos andTheseus and Ariadne. While the folding stool is by a legendary artist,the military spoils are within the historical period as we understand it62 It is worth noting that Pausanias here uses the words xoanon and agalma interchangeably, an

indication that he does not see either as having strong chronological implications; thisobservation is applicable only to his discussion of the works of Daidalos, and the two wordsare by no means intended as general synonyms. 63 Morris (1992) xx.

64 Webb (1992) 52; Russell and Wilson (1981) 359.65 Another of the claims Menander Rhetor recommends in the passage cited is that a statue has

fallen from the heavens. This occurs at e.g. Pausanias 9.12.4 in the case of the log sheathed inbronze which was discussed above (pp. 53-4). However, Pausanias twice in his descriptionmakes it clear that he is reporting what the locals believe, so that I would place this instancein the same category as the ascription of the statue at 9.39.8 to Daidalos.

Pausanias on the past 71

and, perhaps more importantly, are relics of a conflict whoseauthenticity and date were beyond dispute (unlike the Trojan war).Furthermore, Pausanias had a firm enough idea of the date of thePersian wars (if only through reading Herodotos) to dismiss the ideathat a statue by Alkamenes had been damaged during them (1.1.5) ,66

The question this poses is whether Pausanias saw the period fromsome time after the Persian wars backwards as one entity. If so, thiswould argue against the position put forward above, where Pausaniasappeared to be making such distinctions. In Pausanias' 'defence',although for us Daidalos is a legendary figure, from the point of viewof Pausanias, he saw a stool made by Daidalos as an object asauthentic as the breastplate of Masistios and the sword of Mardonios.The reality of the object may have given credibility to the reality ofthe artist.67 This is equally applicable to the staff of Hephaistos atChaironeia (see above, pp. 63-4).

Along with references to Daidalos, there are references to the nextgeneration of artists — his pupils — most commonly Dipoinos andSkyllis (2.15.1, also citing the tradition that they were sons ofDaidalos; Pliny NH 36.9, dating them to c.580 BG). For example,Pausanias saw ebony statues by Dipoinos and Skyllis in the shrine ofthe Dioskouroi at Argos (2.22.5; see above, p. 57). Again, on theAkropolis of Sparta, he saw an image (agalma) of Zeus Hypatos'which is the oldest (palaiotatori) bronze image in existence. For it is notmade in one piece but the parts have been hammered separately, thenfitted to each other and fastened with nails to keep them together.They say the image {agalma) was made by Klearchos of Rhegion;some say that Klearchos was a pupil of Dipoinos and Skyllis, otherssay that he was a pupil of Daidalos himself (3.17.6).

This passage is of interest not only because of the supposed artisticrelationship between Daidalos and later sculptors, but because itagain shows Pausanias' awareness of technique, an awareness notedabove primarily in connection with the simplicity of style he mentionson several occasions. In this case, he is clearly describing whatmodern scholars know as the 'sphyrelaton' technique of hammering

66 On perceptions and use of the Persian wars in the Roman empire, Spawforth (1994b).67 Morris argues that the stool was in fact part of the Persian spoils, and had been subsequently

attributed to Daidalos (Morris (1992) 249-50, 264-5, 371, 386; Boardman suggests that thestool was 'of eastern or Egyptian type which was introduced to Greece by about 600 BC andwhich could easily have been associated with a Daedalus for his reputation as a wood-worker'(Boardman (1980) 46). This does not affect my argument, which depends on what Pausaniasbelieved rather than on whether he was right to believe it.

72 Pausanias on the past

sheets of bronze onto a core.68 This is indeed the earliest ofbronze-working techniques employed on any notable scale (here Iexempt the small-scale solid cast bronze figurines of the Geometricand early Archaic periods), and Pausanias' identification of it as suchis therefore accurate. Less so is his assertion that this particular piece is'the oldest bronze image in existence'69 (supported by the presencehere of wooden images which are 'as ancient as any in Greece',reinforcing the 'aura' of the associations); but it is again indicative ofthe desire to discover an identifiable beginning or starting point forthe genre of bronze statues, a variation on the theme oiprotos heuretes(see above, p. 46).70

This interest is also reflected in Pausanias' statement that 'the firstto fuse bronze were Theodoros and Rhoikos' (9.41.1), echoed later:'the two Samians, Rhoikos son of Philaios and Theodoros son ofTelekles, were the the first who discovered the art of founding bronzeto perfection, and they were the first who cast it in a mould' (10.38.6).The latter reference arises in the context of the discussion of a bronzeagalma on the Akropolis at Amphissa 'which they say was brought byThoas from Ilion' (also above, p. 65). Pausanias adds 'they did notconvince me', explaining that he knows of nothing in existence byTheodoros; but he sees no objection per se to the idea of the survival ofa statue brought as booty from the Trojan war by a legendary hero,and manufactured by a specific ancient artist.

Just as Dipoinos and Skyllis were reputed to be pupils of Daidalos,so they in turn had pupils: two Lakonian sculptors whose worksPausanias saw in the temple of Hera at Olympia are referred to aspupil and supposed pupil of Dipoinos and Skyllis (5.17.2—3); a thirdLakonian sculptor whose work was at Olympia is also called a pupil ofDipoinos and Skyllis (6.19.14).

It was noted above that there is, for the modern scholar, nocredibility in the stories of Daidalos' life and works. It follows thatthere must also be comparable doubt over the authenticity of hispupils, certainly as his pupils and arguably as real sculptors at all. It isnot possible that Dipoinos and Skyllis (and others) were in any realsense pupils of Daidalos; whether the three Lakonian sculptors (and

68 Haynes (1992) n - 2 3 ; Mattusch (1988) 41-4; Rolley (1986) 30; Papadopoulos (1980)75-100. Stewart (1990a) 37 and fig. 17. All aptly cite the sphyrelaton statuettes from thetemple of Apollo at Dreros of the beginning of the seventh century as exemplifying thetechnique Pausanias is describing. 69 Discussed by Mattusch (1988) 41.

70 On the tradition of the first bronzeworking, Morris (1992) 139.

Pausanias on the past 73

others) were pupils of Dipoinos and Skyllis is less clear. By the samelogic, the probability of the accuracy of the reports concerning therelationship of each later generation to the next becomes greater. It isimportant to detail this sequence, since it is from exactly this sort ofreported artistic relationship that much of our sequence of sculptors isderived, as distinct from the sequence of sculpture itself, which isassessed stylistically on the basis of surviving pieces. If the head of thesequence is as uncertain as it is in the case of Daidalos, we may wonderhow reliable the rest is.

The key question here is at what point does the legendary andmythical become the real in the eyes of Pausanias? He believes in thegods, and he believes that the god of craftsmen made objects, anatural assumption. It would, then, be hard for him not to believethat some of those works could survive to his day. With this belief, thelogic leading to his ascription of the staff at Chaironeia to Hephaistosis entirely reasonable. But as a god, Hephaistos is in a differentcategory from other artists, indeed cannot be called an artist in theconventional sense. In dealing with real artists, that is, mortal men,different criteria are needed.

Clearly, Pausanias believed in the authenticity of Daidalos andthat he had seen works by him, enough to deduce a firm idea of hisstyle. It is for this reason, I suggest, that Pausanias sees thedevelopment of sculpture as one straightforward process punctuatedby innovators like Daidalos, Dipoinos and Skyllis, Polykleitos,Kallimachos and others. To follow the logic further is to overestimatewhat can reasonably be extracted from Pausanias: study of the historyof art as such was of little interest during the periods to which most ofthe objects Pausanias saw belong. He is, to that extent, at the mercy ofhis sources, and can improve on them only when he is informed by aninscription, or when he is bold enough to venture a stylistic judgementor an attribution of his own.

Pausanias' use of inscriptions has been well discussed by Habicht,71

and it can profitably be further examined in this context. Oneexample may serve to illustrate the value of inscriptions: in describingsome statues at Olympia, Pausanias quotes some couplets on thepedestal, saying that they were 'in ancient letters' (5.22.3). Epigraphicstudy of the lettering indicates a date of c.475—450 BG, slightly laterthan the Persian spoils which were bracketed with Daidalos' folding

71 Habicht (1985) 64-94.

74 Pausanias on the past

stool in the passage discussed above (1.27.1). Epigraphy is a skilledart at the best of times, and levels of literacy in the Greek worldsuggest that the subtleties are unlikely to have been appreciated bycontemporary viewers of the monument.

The inscription on the stoa of the Athenians at Delphi has beencited as a reason for dating the stoa to the 470s BG, in conjunction withPausanias' words (10.11.6).72 But, as J. Walsh points out,73 addingthe inscription in the latest up to date letter-forms would reduceconsiderably the accessibility of the inscription to the general public,especially visitors from the other parts of the Greek world, who wouldbe used to Athenian inscriptions in the received and establishedletter-forms. This is a major consideration since consumption byoutsiders was a central motivation for such identifying inscriptionsand, indeed, for the buildings themselves, particularly at an inter-statesanctuary of the importance of Delphi. Since, therefore, such reductionin accessibility would obviate the very point of the inscription, Walshargues that the inscription is in fact not good evidence for the date.This indicates the uncertainty that can pertain to something even asapparently readily datable by modern scholars as letter forms. Howmuch less comprehensible would the inscription have been toPausanias? He says that 'the inscription seems to me to refer toPhormio . . . and his exploits', introducing a note of doubt andpersonal interpretation; unfortunately, it is not clear exactly wherethese doubts arise. It may be that the letter-forms caused him doubts,or uncertainty about the details of the history of that period. Hisuncertainty, and his admission of it, reflects a consistent use of thesame logic that led him to describe the folding stool of Daidalos andthe spoils from the Persian wars simply as archaia. I do not think wecan expect more from him than that.

A long answer has been attempted to the question of the point atwhich the mythical and the legendary become real in our sources. Insummary, Pausanias saw no overriding division between thesecategories. If we are to attempt to see ancient art in somethingapproaching the way it was seen by Pausanias, or more generally inthe ancient world, we must remember that for us, it is easier to date anobject because of the wider criteria available to us, and because of themore highly developed state of antiquarianism (whether we call itarchaeology or art-history). We are also far readier to assess an object

72 Walsh (1986) 320, 324-9. 73 Walsh (1986) 325.

Pausanias on the past 75

without associating it with a name, an important distinction since it isby names, and consequently by genealogies, that the sequences ofsculpture given by Pausanias and, more so, Pliny are arranged. We dothis perhaps above all with fourth-century sculpture, to a significantextent with that of the fifth century, rarely with that of the sixth andnot at all with that of the seventh century or those few pieces ofsignificant earlier sculpture.

Thus our own view of the development of sculpture illustrates aprocess in essence very like that employed by Pausanias, a processleading to a conclusion that is largely self-evident: the further backsomething is, the vaguer we become. Thus we can discourse preciselyon the later material, and the earlier a piece is, the greater thetendency for it to be regarded and referred to as, in general terms,'ancient'. Furthermore, we too talk in terms of names when we can; itavoids having to give too many inventory numbers, and gives ahuman dimension: thus one talks of a Pheidian, Skopaic or Lysippanstyle. In this, too, we were anticipated by Pausanias.

CONCLUSION

It has been said that Pausanias 'has a strong bias towards the sacredand the antique, and in architecture, sculpture and painting towardsthe old masters'.74 This is undoubtedly correct, but it is a conclusionthat must be inferred from the descriptions, since Pausanias nowheremakes explicit his vision of the past. But that is entirely consonantwith the generally self-effacing nature of his narrative: he does notclaim his work as a Thucydidean tafjiioc 6$ aiei (Thuc. 1.22), nor doeshe encourage readers to do what has been attempted here; and yet Isuggest that the attempt is justified, not least because of his importanceas a source, exaggerated though this may have been by the accident ofthe survival of his work.

In the introduction to this chapter, the belief was stated thatPausanias had strong personal preferences and values in his attitudesto the objects and sites he was describing, and that they are reflectedin the nuances in his presentation of the objects described in hisnarrative. The evidence adduced has, I believe, shown that Pausanias'attitudes are reflected in several aspects of his work: in his workingmethod, above all his selectivity of which objects and buildings to74 Thompson and Wycherley (1972) 204; cf. Habicht (1985) 23: 'no recent artist is praised like

the old masters'.

76 Pausanias on the past

describe; in his preference for the ancient over the modern; in hisdeeply held religious feelings and the consequent sense of theappropriateness of particular objects, not only to their task but also totheir setting.

The role of religion and cult sites in the present discussion wasnoted in chapter 1 in relation to his evident interest in sanctuaries andin what constitutes a city. The importance of religion to Pausanias ismanifest,75 and it is necessarily a significant factor in the assessment ofthe art, most of which was produced for religious contexts. While heunderstands the Greek religious system, he is divorced from theheyday of the art he is describing, and could not experience thatintimate connection between art and religion at many of the sites hevisited. Exceptionally, however, Pausanias can show a sense ofwonder in his comments, such as that on Eleusis and Olympia (seeabove, p. 68), which seems apart from the ideals of an objectivedescription. Indeed, in the case of Eleusis we owe the lack of adescription to this very sense of awe (1.14.3, 1-38.7).76 But this makesa point of some importance to this study, that we should not treatPausanias' account as a coldly objective one: he did have opinions,feelings and preferences, which are more often implicit than explicitin his work, and which justify a study such as this.

The aura he felt at Eleusis and at Olympia strongly enough tocommit it to writing shows that Pausanias was anything but anunthinking, undiscriminating recorder. But it says something morerelevant for us about his attitude to antiquities, since his work shows alinking of intrinsic sanctity with that bestowed by virtue of age(shown also in the comment on the statue of Daidalos (2.4.5; s e e

above, p. 68)).This was a long-established principle, and one that Pausanias was

certainly aware of: for example, when he tells of the later amassingand storing of relics of Greek epic, history and religion in the temple ofAthena Alea at Tegea (8.46.1-47.3). In the context of Augustus'looting, Pausanias tells us that Augustus took from the temple atTegea the 'ancient image [agalma . . . archaion) of Alean Athena andthe tusks of the Kalydonian boar', but he adds that still in the temple

75 Habicht (.1985) 151-9.76 A sense of wonder at Eleusis was long established: Pind. fr. 121 Bowra; Soph. fr. 837 Pearson;

h.Cer. 480-2; and the prosperity and importance of Eleusis were at their height just afterPausanias' visit with the building of, among other features, the greater Propylaia: Spawforthand Walker (1985) 101-3.

Pausanias on the past 77

in his day was 'the hide of the Kalydonian boar: it is rotting away withage and is now quite bare of bristles. Also, there are hung up thefetters which the Lakedaimonian prisoners wore when they dug theplain of Tegea, but some of the fetters have been eaten away by rust.'

Similarly, Herodotos tells how these fetters, which were brought bythe Spartans to bind the Tegeans they supposed they would capture,were in fact used on the defeated Spartans, and how in his day theyhung round the Archaic temple (1.66). While both these casesconcern antiquities kept long after the event, there is a difference indisplay, in that the relics of the boar hunt were kept inside the temple,while the military spoils were hung round the temple to maximizedisplay. Between Herodotos' day and Pausanias', the fetters hadapparently been brought inside the late Classical temple whichreplaced the Archaic one Herodotos saw, but the fact of their survivalfor so long, and of their display apparently throughout that period, isof great interest.

The Tegea fetters (at least in the intent of those who originallydisplayed them, if not of those who maintained the display) exemplifythe common phenomenon that history has to be justified by producingpieces of material evidence, whether they be the bones of a founder(such as Theseus at Athens or Oresthes (Orestes) at Oresthasion/Megalopolis);77 or of an eponymous hero, as those of Arkas whichwere moved from Mainalos to Mantinea at the bidding of the Delphicoracle (8.9.3-4); or of a local hero such as those of Linos which Philip,son of Amyntas, removed from Thebes to Macedonia supposedly inobedience of a dream, and subsequently returned (9.29.8); or those ofthe local king, Tisamenos, moved by the Lakedaimonians 'at thebidding of the Delphic oracle' to Sparta from Helike where theAchaeans had buried him (7.1.8).78

Such material evidence may also consist of other objects such as'the remains of the wood of the plane-tree which Homer mentions'(9.19.7).79 Specific objects are always easier to deal with, sincesomething real and tangible which can readily be remembered andrecalled when necessary is a more powerful factor than a theoreticalconcept of history or antiquity. But these specific objects also have to77 Theseus: Plut. Theseus 36, Paus. 3.3.8. Orestes: Hdt. 1.67-8, Paus. 3.3.6-7, 8.54.4.78 Leahy (1955). The removal of the bones of Themistokles from Magnesia to the Peiraeus

(1.1.2; Garland (1987) 216-17) was an act of repentance by the Athenians, and thereforecomes in a different category from the motivations reported for the other cases of the transferof bones. Note also the return of the bones of Philopoimen to Megalopolis (8.51.8).

79 Kept in the temple at Aulis in Boiotia; the passage of Homer referred to is //. 2.305.

78 Pausanias on the past

remain relevant, another reason why the fetters are of some interest,since they had a meaning as long as old inter-city rivalries persisted, asthey did between Sparta and Messene until at least AD 77, andpossibly until AD 177/8, Pausanias' own time.80 That is, the fettersexemplify antiquity with a purpose rather than simple antiquity perse.

Although Pausanias does not say so, it is legitimate to ask whetherantiquities such as those in the temple at Tegea had become, in effect,icons for the local populace. This was an attitude Pausanias cannothave been unaware of in view of all his travelling, and the numerousoccasions on which he seems to have consulted local opinion on thebuildings or monuments of a particular area. In the light of all theevidence presented above, it is difficult not to conclude that he himselfregarded antiquities as having a special place in the modern worldsimply because they were antiquities. For him, the past was by nomeans readily comprehensible, but the attempt to fathom it wasworthwhile; the attempt was made by acknowledging, and attemptingto define, dividing lines between the firm and recent past and the dim,distant and virtually timeless past.

Anderson, citing Bowie's belief that 'the fantasy of the hyper-educatedAthenian must have been to walk out into the countryside of Atticaand discover that he was in the fifth century', modifies it thus: 'it is notso much the world of the fifth century, however, as a world in whichthe fifth century has been relocated somewhere in the vicinity of theTrojan War, since we still find Homer cheek by jowl with Socrates'.81

Anderson writes with reference to Lucian, Ver. Hist. 2.19, but that isset in the underworld and is, as Lucian himself informs us {Ver. Hist.1.4; see above, p. 21), an overt fiction in which one would expect sucha juxtaposition of figures from different eras. This would suit the morerhetorically minded of Bowie's 'hyper-educated' of the period (Athenianand otherwise), for whom it would be a perfect opportunity toexercise their skills. But it would not suit those of a more soberinclination, less given to such fiction. Pausanias was among the latterand, rather than revelling in such a mix of periods, would attempt todistinguish periods, not only to separate Homer and Sokrates (as itwere), but to assess by how much to separate them.

In the context of his social, political and cultural background,

80 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 136-9.81 Anderson (1993) 83, citing Bowie (1974) 197; elsewhere, Anderson says that 'sometimes, it

has to be said, Lucian did not have to try very hard to blend conditions of the second centuryAD and the fifth century BC' (Anderson (1982) 79).

Pausanias on the past 79

Pausanias, as an educated native of Asia Minor in the second centuryAD, must be seen as a product of his times. This is apparent in thestrong impression his writings give of his feel for the value, evensanctity, of antiquity and its manifestations in mainland Greece;indeed, the very essence of his work, the very fact that he wrote it as hedid, bears strongest witness to this. But that is to omit the personalelement in his work, his judgements and preferences; he frequentlymakes these clear, among them that he preferred the antique to themodern. And in that, as in much else, he is his own man.

CHAPTER 3

Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i:introduction, Mummius and Sulla

INTRODUCTION

The following three chapters consider in detail the writings andattitudes of Pausanias concerning the ruling figures of RomanGreece. The first part of this chapter considers some of the criteria forselection which caused Pausanias to omit, or refer only briefly, tosome of the emperors; the latter part concerns Pausanias' attitudes toMummius and Sulla. Chapter 4 will concern Caesar and Augustus;and chapter 5 those emperors whom Pausanias discusses of the periodfrom Nero to Marcus Aurelius, with particular emphasis on Hadrian.

The starting-point for these chapters is Mummius' destruction ofCorinth in 146 BC, seen as a seminal moment in Greek history not onlyby modern scholars, but by Pausanias himself. There had, of course,been considerable earlier involvement of the Romans with Greece,1and Pausanias has much to say on the Hellenistic period to 146 BC,2besides his more widely acknowledged interest in Classical and earlierGreece. This was also the period when the Romans developed thehabit of despoiling Greece of its art, a practice by no means original tothem, as Pausanias was well aware (8.46.2; see below, p. 128), but oneat which they became expert. The inglorious deeds of Marcellus atSyracuse in 211 BC are the most notable early example, and amongthe Romans 'from that time came the very beginning of enthusiasmfor Greek works of art and consequently of this general licence todespoil all kinds of buildings, sacred and profane' (Livy 25.40.2; cf.

For a summary history, Alcock (1993) 8-17 (although the definition of the 'early empire' asthe period from 200 BC to 200 AD gives pause).Bearzot (1992); also Habicht (1989) esp. 7-9, 12, (1990) 572, (1992) 76, 85.

80

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 81

Plut. Marc. 21.1) .3 Pausanias, however, makes no mention of Marcellus,nor of other Roman depredations of the art of Greece in the periodbefore Mummius (although in describing the events immediatelypreceding Mummius' sack of Corinth he mentions Metellus' order tohis troops not to burn any sanctuaries (7-I5.9))-4

The method adopted in these chapters (and in chapter 6 onHerodes Atticus and other benefactors) is to consider each figureindividually, concentrating on what Pausanias has to say and whatthat reveals of his attitudes towards them and their activities as theyaffected the political and cultural life of Greece. While discussion ofPausanias' text forms the major part of this study, it also takes accountof other evidence - literary, epigraphical and archaeological - inorder to produce a fuller picture of the impact of each figurediscussed, to put Pausanias' account in context, and to assess what isdistinctively Pausanian.

To the same end, I begin with a brief digression to considerPausanias' selectivity, and particularly why he differs widely in theattention he gives to particular emperors. In this section, I considerfirst those emperors whom Pausanias mentions only very briefly(PTiberius, Caligula and Claudius), then those whom he omitsaltogether (Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian and Nerva).

THE SELECTIVITY OF PAUSANIAS

It has been argued in the preceding chapters that it is essential tounderstand the nature of, and rationale for, Pausanias' selectivity inpresenting his material, and this is applicable also to the present andfollowing chapters. His selectivity extends to instances where he seemsdeliberately, virtually or actually, to ignore certain emperors. In thecases of several of these emperors, while little or nothing can beextracted from Pausanias, we hear much about their activities inGreece from other sources. Indeed, it is important to acknowledge thesheer quantity of evidence from other sources, which is an important3 Pollitt (1978) is particularly useful on the Romans and Greek art in the period to 146 BC; a

different, and highly stimulating, view is taken by Gruen (1992) esp. 84-130. For the sources,Pollitt (1983) 29-58.

4 These included the looting of pictures and sculptures by Aemilius Paullus after Pydna in 168BC, described by Plutarch (Aem. 32-3; see below, p. 103). Since Pydna was in Macedonia,Pausanias may have felt it irrelevant to his task of describing Greece. If any art or sanctuarysuffered when Flamininus and Otilius 'behaved with merciless severity to ancient Greek cities'(7.8.2), Pausanias does not say so (n.b. 'Otilius' is apparently a misnomer for P. VilliusTappulus (cos. 199 BC); e.g. Frazer iv.132).

82 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

factor in putting into perspective Pausanias' own comparativesilence. Thus, while this section takes us some way from the text ofPausanias, it does give an indication of the facts or stories Pausaniasmay be presumed to have had available to him, which he might havepassed on to his readers had he chosen to do so.

Of the Julio-Claudians, Pausanias pays considerable attention toAugustus and Nero, and his account of them will be discussed in detailbelow. The treatment of Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius, with whichI begin, stands in marked contrast, but is nonetheless of value forwhat it reveals of Pausanias' interests and working methods.

Tiberius

The only possible mention of Tiberius in Pausanias' text is a veryuncertain one: referring to facilitating the passage of ships from theOrontes to Antioch, he says 'the Roman emperor (autokrator)5 had anavigable canal dug with much labour and at great expense, and intothis canal he diverted the river' (8.29.3). Citing a tradition (which hecalls false), that Tiberius had changed the name of the river toOrontes from Draco, Frazer notes earlier suggestions that Tiberiuswas the emperor also responsible for the canal; most recently, it hasbeen suggested that Vespasian was in fact responsible.6

Although Tiberius showed considerable interest in art, the natureof the interest, if sources like Suetonius and Pliny are to be believed,was such that we need not wonder at Pausanias' bypassing him. Forexample, Pliny mentions Tiberius' falling in love with ('amavit') apainting by the late fifth /early fourth-century artist Parrhasios,which he put in his bedroom (NH 35.70). He also notes thatTiberius developed a particular, and apparently unnatural, affectionfor the Apoxyomenos of the fourth-century sculptor Lysippos, whichhad been dedicated by Agrippa in front of his baths in Rome, butwhich Tiberius also moved to his own bedroom (NH 34.62). Plinyadds that 'in the beginning of his principate he had been master ofhimself; evidently, this episode provides proof that he was no longerso. Pliny goes on to say that Tiberius was eventually obliged by5 Interestingly, Cassius Dio (57.8.1) reports that Tiberius did not like being called autokrator by

any except his soldiers. Forms of references to emperors are discussed below, pp. 114-16.6 Frazer iv.316, tentatively followed by Levi (1971) 2.446 n.217; Papahatzis argues that it was

undertaken by Tiberius around the time of Christ, although he gives no supporting evidence(Papahatzis 4.307 n.4, imprecisely dated 'y^pco v™ XP°via T°v XpicrroO'). Vespasian: Isaac(1992) 35-

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 83

popular indignation (expressed in the theatre) to return the statue.Suetonius says of Tiberius that 'while emperor he constructed no

magnificent public works, for the only ones which he undertook, thetemple of Augustus and the restoration of Pompey's theatre, he leftunfinished after so many years' (Tib. 47). And yet, there is evidence ofmore widespread embellishment of the provinces during Tiberius'reign: his part in the imperial cult is attested by the statue of him nextto those of Augustus and Livia at Gytheion, placed in the theatre forthe imperial festival (see below, p. 133). And at Corinth, it is possiblethat Temple E is Tiberian in origin; to this period can be assignedwith certainty the temple's reconstruction and the considerableenhancement of its architectural setting. This is plausibly seen byCharles Williams as evidence of'the escalation of the Imperial Cult inCorinth from the time of Tiberius onwards'.7 Also at Corinth, theaddition of the Imperial Games to the Isthmian calendar during thereign of Tiberius may seem comparatively insignificant, but, as willbe discussed below, the games constituted the one thread of continuityafter the destruction of Corinth by Mummius and therefore had aspecial status as an exceptional survival, rather than a revival. InSparta, Tiberius is associated with building activity at the theatre,itself by that time primarily an Augustan construction (see below,pp. 130-1).8

In front of the stoa of Attalos in the Agora of Athens, a bronzequadriga on a pillar, of Pergamene date like the stoa itself, wasre-dedicated to Tiberius.9 The accompanying inscription shows thatTiberius had received divine honours, and was titled euergetes,although the nature of the benefactions is not known, and may haveconsisted of a favourable response to a petition.

In summary, the picture from Pausanias is consonant with thatfrom other sources, literary and otherwise, in reflecting the verylimited activity of Tiberius compared to Augustus.10 The pictureSuetonius gives us of an increasingly perverted and withdrawn man isnot apparent in Pausanias - Tiberius' character would only havebeen of interest to him if it had been directly relevant to his concerns,and it would have been out of character for him gratuitously to writeof such matters.

Williams (1987) 30. 8 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 101-2.Vanderpool (1959), with details of other Athenian monuments to Tiberius.Mitchell (1987b) 365.

84 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 1

Caligula

Pausanias' only reference to Caligula occurs in his description ofThespiai in Boiotia:

they say that the first to remove the image of Eros was the Roman emperor(dunasteusanta en Romei) Gaius (Caligula), and that it was restored byClaudius only to be a second time carried off by Nero. At Rome it wasdestroyed by fire. Of the men who thus sinned against the god, Gaius, in theact of giving the watchword, was despatched by a soldier, whose rage he hadexcited by always giving him, with a covert taunt, the same watchword;while Nero, besides his conduct to his mother, was guilty of accursed andunlovely crimes against his wives. (9.27.3—4)Unusually, Pausanias here makes a direct comparison of emperors,with Caligula characterized as a sinner as well as a remover of art,who met what is implicitly a deserved bloody fate. The last figurePausanias so stigmatized is from the pre-imperial period, namelySulla, who also acted impiously and met an appropriate fate (seebelow, pp. 104-5). Although these similarities are striking, Pausaniasmakes no further comparison and discusses Sulla at much greaterlength than he does Caligula. This reflects Sulla's considerablygreater impact on Greece, showing once more that Pausaniasdiscusses these figures only as far as is relevant to his purpose.

Although I am primarily concerned in this chapter with Pausanias'view of individual figures, I have also stressed the importance ofconsidering his references to them in relation to what we know fromother sources, and here the case of Caligula is of some interest.Suetonius' account perhaps holds too great a part of our informationabout Caligula for its accuracy and objectivity to be assessed, but thatis fate: had Tacitus' chapters on Caligula survived, we might havehad another view. Perhaps the most telling statement of Suetonius'for present purposes is that Caligula gave 'orders that such statues ofthe gods as were especially famous for their sanctity or their artisticmerit, including that of Zeus at Olympia, should be brought fromGreece, in order to remove their heads and put his own in their place'(Gaius 22.2; cf. Cassius Dio 59.28.3). The impiety of such a deed isapparent to all but one seeing himself as a god, and as Jupiterfurthermore (Suetonius also says here that 'some hailed him asJupiter Latiaris'). Caligula's proposed change of identity for thestatue is paralleled in fact but not in spirit by Claudius' replacing thehead of Alexander with that of Augustus in a painting by Apelles (see

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 85

below, p. 127; cf. the Orestes/Augustus statue, below, pp. 126-7): thecrucial difference is that Claudius' deed was for the advancement ofAugustus, that of Caligula for his own advancement.

Pausanias, who tells us so much about the statue of Zeus atOlympia (5.10.2, 5.11), shows no awareness of this story. He mayhave known it, but omitted it simply because its inclusion did notserve his purpose. Caligula's plan was not, after all, fulfilled, and ittherefore left no mark on the statue or on the site which housed it. If itmay be so put, it was a story of Rome, not of Olympia or Greece. Hadthe deed been done, there can be little doubt of how Pausanias wouldhave regarded it: the effective decapitation and re-assignment of'such statues of the gods as were especially famous for their sanctity ortheir artistic merit' (to repeat a phrase of Suetonius that would havestruck — perhaps did strike — a chord with Pausanias) puts thiscontemplated deed in the category of the heinous.11

Suetonius returns to Pheidias' statue at Olympia towards the endof his life of Caligula: 'his approaching murder was foretold by manyprodigies. The statue of Jupiter at Olympia, which he had ordered tobe taken to pieces and moved to Rome, suddenly uttered such a pealof laughter that the scaffoldings collapsed and the workmen took totheir heels' (Gaius 57.1). The fact that Caligula got as far as havingscaffolding erected by his agents is in itself of interest. Cassius Dio'saccount is closely comparable: 'the ship built to bring [the statue toRome] was shattered by thunderbolts, and loud laughter was heardevery time that anybody approached as if to take hold of the pedestal'(59-28.4)-12

Here there are two topoi: first, the idea of the portent, which we willmeet again apropos of Pausanias' comment on Sulla's coming beingforetold by ashen rain (below, p. 97); and, more pertinently to thisexample, apropos of Cassius Dio's report of a statue of Athena spittingblood in advance of Augustus' arrival in Athens (below, p. 123).Secondly, the intended removal of the statue embodies a practicewhich will be seen in the rest of this chapter to be a frequent one, towhich Pausanias' account is one of the most significant witnesses. Inthis particular case, the scale of Caligula's enterprise, emphasized by

11 Incidentally, Suetonius' references to these statues as being of'artistic merit' and 'by thehands of the greatest artists' do not indicate that Caligula was personally capable ofdistinguishing meritorious examples from workaday ones.

12 Forte (1972) 210, misreads the sources here in saying that 'a ship sank while it was bringingthe statue of Olympian Zeus to be remodelled at Rome with Gaius' features'.

86 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

the size of the statue, effectively demonstrates the characteristicextent of his ambition, and of his impiety.

Of Caligula's building plans, he placed digging a canal through theIsthmus of Corinth 'ante omnium', according to Suetonius (Gaius 21,adding that he arranged a survey). Pliny (jVi/4.1 o) lists it, along withother attempts, as 'an act of sacrilege'. Julius Caesar and HerodesAtticus also contemplated the project and Nero actually attempted it;their interest will be discussed later, but here it may be noted thatPausanias mentions only Nero's attempt.

The foregoing puts Pausanias' account in perspective: while a reignof under four years allows considerably less scope than do theforty-one years of Augustus, for example, the sole reference toCaligula in Pausanias' writings reinforces the point that little of whatSuetonius and other writers say about him and his activities isrelevant to Greece, and therefore to Pausanias. This has already beenseen to be true of Tiberius, and will be seen to apply to Claudius.

Claudius

The passage cited above concerning Caligula's actions at Thespiai(9.27.3-4) also includes Pausanias' only reference to Claudius. Itshows Claudius in a good light, as the emperor who restored a statueof Eros which Caligula had stolen; and it enhances this image byadding that Claudius' successor, Nero, carried it off for a second time,thus presenting Claudius as (in this respect at least) a good emperorbetween bad ones. This aspect of Claudius' policy is known also fromCassius Dio (60.6.8) and from epigraphical evidence (and cf. p. 87n.17); the latter also shows that he was regarded as 'saviour andbenefactor', perhaps in part because of the return of stolen objects.There may also have been counted among his benefactions theenlargement and remodelling of the approach to the Akropolis ofAthens which occurred during his reign, although we should not infera personal role for him in this.13 That Claudius was highly regarded inAthens may be deduced from the three bases for statues of him fromthe Agora of Athens, in particular the one which identifies him withthe epithet 'Apollo Patroos', of which Shear rightly observes that 'wemay infer that he had been assimilated to that deity in his temple onthe west side of the square'.14 Geagan pertinently adds that Apollo

13 Oliver (1983) 103, citing IG 112 3271; Shear (1981) 367. 14 Shear (1981) 363.

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 87

Patroos was 'a divinity of no small significance to the Athenians'.15

Elsewhere in Greece, Pausanias in all probability saw the statue ofClaudius as Zeus in the Metroon at Olympia, where he notes (butdoes not identify) statues of Roman emperors (5.20.9) and where,among others, was also found one of Augustus as Zeus (see belowp. 120). Thus there is again apparent the association of Romanemperors with Zeus, which can be traced back to the Macedonians,and was to be at its most developed in the case of Hadrian (see below,pp. 162-3). The disapproving Suetonius reports (Claudius 25.5) thatClaudius contemplated transferring the Eleusinian Mysteries toRome, but does not say why Claudius thought of doing this, nor whyhe did not in fact do it. Pausanias is silent on this, as on most mattersEleusinian.16

Although we have a few references to Claudius' dealings with art,such as the episode of the Apelles paintings cited, the sourcesconcentrate on his building and engineering projects at Rome andOstia.17 His dealings with the provinces are only treated in the mostgeneral way; he may have visited Greece in AD I 0/11, and he was aGreek speaker (Suet. Claudius 42) and familiar with Greek culture,even if mainly for cosmetic reasons.18 If he had any notable contactwith either Greece or Asia Minor, the lack of interest in it inPausanias' writings is entirely consonant with the other literarysources. His extensive activity in Britain is ignored (in fact, Pausanias'two references to Britain (1.33.4, 8.43.4) make no mention of anybuildings or objects).

In summary, there is little reason for Pausanias to mentionClaudius; where he does, he is complimentary, not least by thecontrast with the emperor immediately before and, more ominously,immediately after him.

Emperors omitted by Pausanias

The emperors whom Pausanias certainly omits are Galba, Otho,Vitellius, Domitian and Nerva. Vespasian receives only one mention(an important one, discussed below, pp. 155-6), and there is one15 Geagan (1979) 387. 16 Clinton (1989b) 1513-14.17 Pliny (NH 36.122) and Suetonius (Claudius 20, cf. Gaius 21) mention Claudius' completion of

the Caligulan aqueduct, the draining of the Fucine Lake, and building at Ostia (cf. CassiusDio 60.11.5). Claudius also restored several buildings in Rome, and reversed some ofCaligula's policies (Suet. Claudius 11.3, 21.1-3, Cassius Dio 60.6.8).

18 Levick (1990) 19, 117-18, 182; Huzar (1984).

88 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

possible reference to Titus' destruction of Jerusalem (8.16.5).19

Although Pliny (NH34.55, 36.37) shows that Titus fitted inconspicu-ously into the pattern set by previous emperors with regard to thecollecting and display of Greek art, there is no suggestion of anythingin his reign to interest Pausanias.

The exclusion of Domitian is of more interest: his reign producedlittle building in the provinces,20 and his damnatio memoriae (Suet. Dom.23.1) may have been a deterrent, but there were aspects of hisactivities in Greece which one would not have been surprised to findreferred to by Pausanias. Epigraphic evidence shows that Domitianwas the first emperor to hold the eponymous archonship at Athens;21

he restored the temple of Apollo at Delphi in AD 84 at his own expense;and in AD 90, in response to a petition from a deputation from Delphi,he resisted a change in the procedure at the games, preferring tomaintain ancient procedures,22 in contrast to the unwelcomeinnovations briefly imposed by Nero on the Olympic games (seebelow, p. 150). Also during this period, a stoa at Megalopolis wasbuilt,23 perhaps one of the two to which Pausanias (8.30.6) refers; hegives no date for one, and says that the other was not built by Philip,although he implies that it was contemporary.24 Either of these maybe the Domitianic one - if so, Pausanias may or may not have known- but with so little information available, we can only speculate.Finally, the Metroon at Olympia, mentioned (p. 87) as containingstatues of Augustus and Claudius (among others) as Zeus, also housedone which may be Domitian. As Pausanias merely notes these statues(5.20.9), but identifies none by name, the lack of reference toDomitian here is of no significance.

In short, Pausanias' silence on Domitian is best taken as simplyreflecting the fact that he impinged little on the world Pausanias wasinterested in describing. Thus his treatment exemplifies Pausanias'policy of not gratuitously discussing individuals whom he does nototherwise have good cause to consider in the course of his narrative.

The omission of these emperors leaves most of a thirty-year perioduntreated by Pausanias. That this is so is entirely commensurate withwhat we know of these emperors' involvement in Greece: their reignswere mostly very brief, and produced nothing relevant to Pausanias'

19 Neither Frazer nor Papahatzis speculates on his identity, and neither mentions Titus.20 The notable exception was Ephesos (Ward-Perkins (1981) 291, 294-5.21 Oliver (1983) 103. 22 Millar (1977) 450-1. 23 Frazer iv.322-3.24 Frazer iv.322 connects it with Livy 38.34, dating it to 189 BC.

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 89

own interests.25 In other words, Pausanias' selectivity here accuratelymirrors his purpose and exemplifies his practice of discussing onlymaterial which is relevant to the task he had set himself, or of allowinghimself only those digressions which arise directly from such material.We may presume that if his main purpose had been either history orbiography, his writings on the emperors would have been very different.

Having considered the attitudes and working methods of Pausaniasthrough those ruling figures of whom he makes little or nothing, I nowturn to the greater part of this study, the examination of how he treatsthose figures whom he discusses in detail, namely the remainingemperors and, first, the Republican rulers.

PAUSANIAS AND THE REPUBLICAN RULERS

In the rest of this chapter, I examine Pausanias' attitudes towardsMummius and Sulla, and towards their actions in Greece. They werenot, strictly speaking, 'rulers', since control of the new province ofAchaia was assigned to the governor of Macedonia, and Pausaniasrefers to each as strategos (e.g. 1.20.4, 5.10.5 respectively). However,their impact on Achaia justifies the prominence Pausanias gives them.

MUMMIUS

Although the partial subjugation of Greece in the half-centuryleading to the sack of Corinth by Mummius in 146 BC might lead oneto question how significant that event actually was, it is clear thatPausanias saw it as putting an end to one phase of the history ofGreece. This was a phase in which he believed Greece had beenrecovering from the damage done by the Macedonians, whomPausanias, in common with other writers of his era,26 regards asresponsible for the degradation of Greece (e.g. 3.7.11). It was thenthat 'like a fresh shoot on a blasted and withered trunk, the AchaeanLeague arose on the ruins of Greece' (7.17.2). However, 'the rogueryand cowardice of its generals blighted the growing plant', a self-inflictedinability to continue the advances Greece had made leading Pausaniasto add in an exasperated tone that its 'troubles began with the25 It is true that Suetonius (Vit. 5) refers to Vitellius' stealing some offerings from temples in

Rome, and substituting cheap imitations for some others, but, as this is a purely internalaffair, it would be of no relevance to Pausanias. 26 Palm (1959) 64.

go Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

overthrow of Perseus and the Macedonian empire by the Romans'(7.io.5).«

As Pausanias gives us his view of the burgeoning and thenwithering of Greece in the period before Mummius, so he gives us inample measure his views on the actions of Mummius, which inaugurated'the period when Greece sank to the lowest depth of weakness'(7.17.1), and had a contributory effect in forming the Greece of hisown day.

Although Pausanias says that Mummius 'dismantled the walls ofall the cities that had fought against the Romans' and imposed tributepayments and fines (7.16.6—7), it is on his actions against Corinththat he concentrates his attention. It is my belief that for Pausanias,Corinth was the centre of the influx of 'Romanitas' into Greece and,as such, it was for him both an exemplar and an exceptional case.

Corinth became the largest city of the province of Achaia, and it isno surprise that Pausanias' contemporary, Apuleius, says that Corinth'caput est totius Achaiae provinciae' [Met. 10.18).28 Patrai is anothercandidate for the crucial role in the creation of Roman Greece, and itis true that Pausanias has much to say about it (see below, pp. 134—6);however, it is striking that the passage of Pausanias just quoted comesin book seven, on Achaea, and specifically leading to Patrai. Thisestablished at least a parallel, if not the priority of Corinth. Closerexamination of Pausanias' references to Corinth follows at eachappropriate place in the text. For immediate purposes, Mummius isunder discussion, and I begin by looking at other writers' views of him.

The ancient view of the sack of Corinth

There is every reason to see Mummius as the one whose destruction ofCorinth set new standards of thoroughness, and marked the beginningof the provincial status of Greece. He was given the cognomen'Achaicus' in recognition of the sack of Corinth (e.g. Pliny, JV7/35.24).

The sack of Corinth by Mummius attracted the concern of Cicero,who said that 'through a specious appearance of expediency wrong is27 Related passages are discussed by Habicht (1985) 108-9.28 Apuleius' phrase need not denote 'capital' in the administrative sense, and the notion of

provincial 'capitals' is not universally favoured: Engels (1990) 199 n.41; Alcock (1993) 133;Kent (1966) 18. It is symptomatic that Engels (19, 8) and Alcock (18, 156) call it both theprobable capital and the capital. Burton (1976) stresses the importance of assize-towns insharing the administrative duties of a province. It may still be, of course, that a city likeCorinth, the largest in its province, was of symbolic and emotional significance.

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 91

very often committed in transactions between state and state, as byour own country in the destruction of Corinth' [Off. 3.46). He goes onimmediately to describe 'a more cruel wrong3 committed by theAthenians against the Aiginetans. Here Cicero characterizes Mummius'actions negatively (even, by association with the Athenian action, asan atrocity), and in the Verrines, he uses Mummius as the climax of alist of predators who have despoiled Greece of its art. As with the restof the Verrines in particular, and Cicero's work in general, there is arhetorical imperative operating, in this case to stress the beauty andimportance of any city destroyed by an opponent as a means ofdenigrating the perpetrator as convincingly and as thoroughly aspossible. Here the point is to contrast the personally covetousbehaviour of Verres with the empty home even of Mummius, thedestroyer of Corinth, and despoiler of its art (on Verres' adorning hisown home, Verr. 2.50). Cicero lists the destruction of art by Marcellus,who is particularly relevant since he had in 211 BG despoiled Syracuseof its art, providing Rome with its first substantial influx of Greek art,as Plutarch observes (Marc. 21.1). As in the passage concerningMummius, Cicero understates the effects of Marcellus' actions onSyracuse in order to throw the harshest possible light on Verres.29

Cicero then continues with Scipio and Flamininus, and ends with'Mummius who destroyed the beautiful city of Corinth, full of arttreasures of every kind . . . These were men of high rank and eminentcharacter, but their houses were empty of statues and pictures; whilewe still see the whole city, and the temples of the gods, and every partof Italy, adorned with the gifts and memorials that they brought us'(Verr. 2.55). For Cicero's rhetoric to have greatest impact, he portraysthe quality of the works taken over the years as the highest possible;the comparison with Mummius is, by implication, the worst credible,a true measure of Mummius' impact.

Vitruvius refers to Mummius' destruction of the theatre at Corinth,and his carrying offbronze vessels which he later sold at Rome (5.5.8).

A theme which runs through the sources on Mummius is that headorned not his own home, but the city and country (i.e. Italy) as awhole. This is taken up again by Cicero (Off. 2.22), and elsewhere,e.g. De Vir. Must. 60: 'Mummius despoiled Corinth of its statues andpaintings, filled the whole of Italy with them, and kept none for hisown home'; Pliny NH 34.36: 'Mummius after conquering Achaia

29 Ferrary (1988) 576, contra Pietila-Castren (1978) 123 and n.51, who takes Cicero at face value.

92 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

filled the city with statues, though destined not to leave enough at hisdeath to provide a dowry for his daughter - for why not mention thisas well as the excuse for it?'

Although not mentioning Mummius5 home, Strabo mentions thedistribution of the spoils of Corinth: 'The most and best of the otherdedicatory offerings at Rome came from there; and the cities in theneighbourhood of Rome also obtained some' (8.6.23) • The implicationsof this statement are significant: the sheer quantity of public monumentsin Rome by Strabo's day was enormous, and for the majority of theseto have come from one city confirms the impression given by otherwriters that the 'contribution' of Mummius to the public embellishmentof Rome was considerable, and his deprivation of Corinth corre-spondingly so. By the time of Strabo, these statues would have been inplace for over a century, an indication of their lasting impact,consonant with his statement that these were also the 'best' of thepublic monuments of Rome. So the awareness of Mummius' deedsand their consequences seems to have been high from the time of thedestruction of Corinth, and it remained so until that of Pausanias(and no doubt beyond).

Pausanias' view of the sack of Corinth

Pausanias describes the human aspect of Mummius' attack onCorinth, including the massacring of men and the selling into slaveryof women and children (7.16.8). The description is, of course, notbased on autopsy but neither does it conform to what we know of theconventions for describing the sack of a city (see above, p. 20). As aturning point in the subjugation of Greece, the event needed stressing,and a detailed description of this kind is almost a pre-requisite forcommunicating its significance. That this is the crucial event in thehistory of Corinth, and thereby in the transition of Greece as a wholeto a Roman province (notwithstanding its formal incorporation in 27BC), is shown not least by the contrast with Pausanias' low-keydescription of the acquisition of Corinth by Flamininus (7.8.1—2).

Pausanias' references to Mummius' acts in relation to the art ofCorinth concur with those of other authors in principle, but add twointeresting details, typical of his own interests. First, in mentioningthe art (7.16.8), he refers to those works carried off as Corinth's 'mostadmired' pieces, concurring in artistic judgement with the other

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 93

sources (cf. Strabo's word 'best' cited above). But in the samesentence he adds a note not struck in any other account, namely areligious one: 'their most admired monuments of piety {anathemata)and art he carried off'. A better translation for anathemata might be'votive offerings', as Frazer translates the word apropos of Sulla at9.7.5. Throughout Pausanias' writings, art and piety are frequentlyinextricably entwined, and the phrase should not imply that anathemataexclude works of art.

Although there is no explicit reference in Pausanias to any religiousinappropriateness in Mummius' actions, the use of the word anathemadoes sound a note not found in any other account. This may be putdown to Pausanias' personal interest in religion, in this case hisreporting of the stealing of anathemata communicating the sense ofviolation felt by him and not shared by the other writers. As I willargue below, this is indicative and symbolic for Pausanias of theviolation not only of Corinth, but of Greece as a whole, and itsreplacement by the invading power of Rome. Indeed, talking of theMummian destruction, he says that 'this was the period when Greecesank to the lowest depth of weakness' (7.17.1). He continues by sayingthat 'from time immemorial indeed, parts of it had been wasted andravaged by the hand of God'. He then gives a fairly long exposition ofthe stages in the decline and fall of Greece, beginning with the Dorianinvasion, including such events as the fifth-century plague at Athensand the rise of Macedonia, and continuing as far as Nero andVespasian (the passage is discussed below). The process is one ofdegeneration, temporarily halted by the Achaean League (7.17.2),but resuming with Mummius. The place of Corinth in the history ofRoman Greece until Pausanias' time is therefore central.

Secondly, and as a counterbalance, Pausanias says 'the lessvaluable [monuments, Mummius] presented to Philopoimen, thegeneral of Attalos, and in my time the spoils of Corinth were still to beseen at Pergamon' (7.16.8, the continuation of the passage quotedabove). He does not mention, and may not have known, that theobjects were sold, at least according to Pliny (NH35.24), referring tosquabbling between Mummius and Attalos over a painting boughtby Attalos and subsequently recognized as valuable by Mummius,who retrieved it. In the same passage, Pliny observes that from thesale of booty from Corinth by Mummius originated 'the high esteemattached officially to foreign paintings at Rome'; if this is accurate, it

94 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

is hard to attribute it to any sense of connoisseurship on the part ofMummius.30

Pliny's story is similar in essence (and intent) to that told byVelleius Paterculus that 'Mummius was so lacking in culture that,when he had captured Corinth and was arranging for the transportationto Italy of paintings and statues, which were masterpieces by thehands of the greatest artists, he warned those in charge of thetransportation that if they destroyed any of the statues and paintings,they would have to replace them with new ones' (i. 13.4, tr. Pollitt). Ithas been suggested that Velleius may have misunderstood Mummius'actions, and that his hostility may have resulted from this ignorance.31

Whatever the origin of this tradition, it is one to which Pausanias doesnot subscribe. Indeed, the fact that Mummius retained the morevaluable monuments rather than hand them over to Philopoimensuggests that Pausanias at least thought him capable of distinguishingvaluable from less valuable,32 although (as with Pliny's story) it is notat all clear that this reflects on his art-historical rather than his purelycommercial judgement.

Pausanias' reference to Corinth's monuments not only beingcarried off by Mummius, but also being displayed elsewhere, echoesthe other writers. However, while they talk of Rome and Italy as theplace of display, he refers to Pergamon, in his home territory of AsiaMinor, typically placing the stress on autopsy, as is natural for one ofhis background. Pausanias makes no reference to Mummius' notusing the spoils to adorn his own home, in contrast to the sources citedabove. This increases the possibility that their mention of it is arhetorical element designed to heighten the particular emotion theyare attempting to evoke. Mummius' lack of self-interest in notadorning his own home is noted with approval; for Pausanias, even ifhe were aware of the story and believed it, it could hardly have beencounted a significant balance to the seminal destruction of Corinthwhich Mummius wrought.

Since Pausanias' interest was in Greece rather than in Rome, hesees the destruction and despoiling as a Greek would, albeit not as amainland Greek: 'the old population of Corinth is entirely gone: thepresent population is a colony sent out by the Romans' (2.1.2). Hegoes on to mention the founding of the veteran colony by JuliusCaesar, and with him a new political system (as he does also at30 Pollitt says that Pausanias' account here 'is probably more trustworthy' (Pollitt (1983) 47 n.82).31 Pietila-Castren (1982) 142. 32 Gruen (1992) 125.

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 95

3.11.4). Caesar's refoundation of Corinth acts to some extent as an'antidote' to Mummius' destruction, and the true importance ofCorinth in the process of transition from ancient to modern, Roman,Greece is best assessed in connection with its re-foundation under Caesar.

For Pausanias, the removal of votives and other works of art fromGreece, their rightful place, inevitably caused distress and anger,sensitive as he was to the idea of appropriateness and setting. Thechiastic parallel of ancient Greek objects transported out of Greece,and modern Roman citizens imported into Greece, here specificallyCorinth, is a deliberate and striking one, and Pausanias disdains bothhalves of the equation. The subsequent Hellenization of both the cityand its population was remarked on in the early second century AD(Ps.Dio Chrysostom [Favorinus] Or. 37.26). But, although theHellenizing of Corinth is undeniable, it is, in Charles Williams'words, the result of'the Greek influences and pressures that culminatedin the Hadrianic wave of pan-Hellenism'.33 It cannot, in short, beattributed to the period of the Caesarian re-foundation, nor be seen asa consequence of it.

It seems to me inescapable that Pausanias is precisely distancing'the present population', if not scorning them, by referring to themeven two hundred years on as 'a colony planted by the Romans'. Theclear implication is that he thinks of them as Romans even after somesix or so generations, and that mere habitation decidedly does notconfer the 'Greekness' which would give them the distance from theRomans which he is unwilling to assign to them.34 A further elementhere is the 'mock-Greekness' of the Roman remains, the 'falsification'argued for below (pp. 113-14). I suggest that from Pausanias'standpoint, this 'falsification' was every bit as applicable to thepopulation as to the buildings, and that by distancing the presentpopulation of Corinth from what he sees as the Greeks proper, he isstrengthening the impression of his own distance from the Romans,and thereby emphasizing his own claims as a Greek.

Mummius has another claim to originality in Pausanias' text: 'weknow of no Roman before Mummius, whether private person orsenator, who dedicated an offering [anathema) in a Greek sanctuary'

33 Williams (1987) 35, also citing this passage, as does Alcock (1993) 169. Williams also adduces(37 n.20) epigraphic support (Kent (1966) 18-9).

34 I disagree with Eisner's view that 'by virtue of being in that place, according to the Pausaniandefinition these people had become "Greek"; the place itself had imparted its identity to them'(Eisner (1992) 15). It is not clear what 'the Pausanian definition' is (also, see below, p. 113n. 17).

96 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

(5.24.4, describing a bronze Zeus dedicated by Mummius at Olympia,and a possible second one; he also dedicated, on the architrave of thetemple of Zeus at Olympia, twenty-one gilded shields to mark thesack of Corinth (5.10.5)).35 Earlier dedications appear to invalidatePausanias' claim, for example those of Flamininus at Delphi, attestedby Plutarch {Flam. 12.6-7) who, as a priest at Delphi, would haveknown. However, Yannis Tzifopoulos has recently argued thatPausanias is in fact correct on the grounds that his word anathema hasbeen incorrectly translated, and in this case refers to a specific type ofdedication, namely Zeus statues.36 This very specific meaning requiresa use of anathema which is not paralleled elsewhere, although the wordis regularly used by Pausanias (see above, p. 93); it also requires adifferent meaning from that used elsewhere in this very passage (asTzifopoulos himself observes37). The issue is not clear-cut but,although I disagree with Tzifopoulos' hypothesis, the question is notof primary importance for present purposes: as I have stressedelsewhere, the focus of my study is on what Pausanias believes ratherthan on whether he is right to believe it. In this case, genuineignorance is a highly probable explanation of this omission: it isunlikely indeed that Pausanias would have credited Mummius withbeing the first Roman to dedicate at a Greek sanctuary if he had notthought this to be true.

A final point arising from Pausanias' account of Mummius andOlympia concerns four portrait statues of Mummius of which thebases are preserved: as Tzifopolous observes, 'The reason for Pausanias'deliberate omission of these four dedications of Mummius, which in asense glorify the personal achievement of the Roman consul, must liein his negative opinion about Mummius' excesses after his victory'.38

While it would be inappropriate to ascribe the omission of all suchportrait statues to disdain for the figure portrayed (the example of theimperial statues in the Metroon at Olympia comes to mind), such amotivation in this case seems inescapable and perfectly consistentwith the rest of Pausanias' attitude to Mummius.

Pausanias gives the occasion of Mummius' dedications: the shields'after he had conquered the Achaians, taken Corinth, and expelled itsDorian inhabitants' (his purposefully chosen words again reflecting

35 Other dedications of Mummius at Olympia included at least two statues of himself, attestedby inscribed bases (Frazer in.634-5). 36 Tzifopoulos (1993).

37 Tzifopoulos (1993) 95.38 Tzifopoulos (1993) 99. On the Mummian statue-bases, Philipp and Koenigs (1979).

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 97

his distaste at the fate of the indigenous, Greek, population), and theZeus 'from the spoils of Achaia'. The implication is that suchdedications compound rather than expiate Mummius' impiety — afterall, the word anathema is precisely that used for some of the objectsMummius carried off from Corinth (7.16.8; also at 9.7.5 where Sullatakes anathemata, among other objects, from Delphi to distributeamong the army (further, see below, p. 102)). Nor should we read anylessening of the implicit condemnation into the fact that some of themaltreatment inflicted on Greece by Mummius was reversed because'not many years afterwards the Romans took pity on Greece'(7.16.10), suggesting that even the Romans found his repressiveactions in Greece too strong.

SULLA

A divine rain of ashes on the Athenians in 87 BG is implied byPausanias (9.6.6) to have foretold the coming in the next year of Sullaand his peculiarly destructive visit to Athens, and ushers in thestrongly religious, almost mystic, aura connected with Sulla, and thehighly personal terms in which accounts of his actions are written. It isknown that Sulla's own autobiographical writings laid stress on hisbelief in omens,39 and it is certain that these writings were influentialupon Plutarch, as they may well have been upon Pausanias also. Butwe cannot tell whether they might have influenced Pausanias onlyindirectly as part of the received tradition of Sulla's life by his time,nor how much of the perspective goes back to Sulla. I begin byassessing briefly Sulla's own attitude towards Greece; while this takesus temporarily away from Pausanias, it allows Pausanias' account tobe seen in context and in relation to other accounts, rather than inisolation. Further sections examine in detail Pausanias' own view ofSulla's actions in Greece (particularly Eleusis and Athens), and of hischaracter.

Sulla's attitude to Greece

There are indications of a positive attitude towards Greece on thepart of Sulla, but they need to be considered with caution and not atface value. First, he may well have been an initiate at Eleusis - at the39 Lewis (1993) 665-9; a s n e observes, Augustus and Hadrian also made a point of their belief in

omens in their autobiographical writings (669-89, 697-702).

98 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

least, he was initiated into one of the mysteries very soon after hisarrival in Athens (see below, p. 99). If it was indeed the EleusinianMysteries that he was initiated into, this may have been a significantattempt to identify himself with one of the oldest and most secretiveaspects of established Greek religion, or simply part of the paraphernaliaof being 'in charge' of Athens. We cannot know this but, althoughseveral references will be made in this chapter to the relations of laterrulers with Eleusis, it is certainly the case that initiation became acommon practice among prominent Republican figures, such asCicero, and perhaps Antony.40

Secondly, epigraphical evidence from Oropos in Attica reveals thatSulla had made a vow to Amphiaraos, giving land which he hadexempted from tax as a result.41 Appropriately, Amphiaraos was notthe only healing deity with whom Sulla had dealings (see below,p. 99). It was also in Sulla's time that the games to Amphiaraos atOropos, established since at least the fourth century, began to includeRoma.42 As Sherk observes, 'the decision to extend the games tohonour Rome was most wise. This brought the precinct to theattention of Sulla.'43 Not for the only time, this shows an awareness onthe part of local inhabitants of how best to flatter the Romans in orderto extract benefactions.

Thirdly, as Christopher Pelling notes, Plutarch suggests that Sullaspared Athenian captives because of Athens' glorious past {Sulla14.5).44 This is at odds with Plutarch's giving as one explanation ofSulla's 'dreadful and inexorable passion for the capture of Athens' his'fighting . .. against the shadow of the city's former glory' (13.1, citedbelow, p. 104). The contradictory uses to which Athens' past is put inthese two almost directly juxtaposed quotations say less about Sullathan about Plutarch.

On one occasion, a long-established Greek sanctuary even came toSulla's aid: 'from Lebadeia and the cave of Trophonios favourable

40 Antony's initiation is uncertain, as Plutarch (Ant. 23.2) refers to 'mysteries' which, as in thecase of Sulla, need not refer to the Eleusinian rites (Clinton (1989b) 1506). Antony was,however, honoured by the Athenians, who dedicated statues of Antony and Cleopatra on theAkropolis (Cassius Dio 50.15.2, telling how the statues were struck down into the theatre bythunderbolts as a portent (Habicht (1992) 86); on statues as portents, see below, p. 123).Elsewhere in Greece, Plutarch says that Antony undertook in 42 BC to complete the temple ofApollo, presumably that at Delphi, which had been damaged by Thracians or Illyrians (Ant.23.3; Levin (1989) 1603-4; Jones (1966) 65, wonders if the temple at Megara is meant).

41 Sherk (1969) no. 23; Price (1984a) 33; Cicero, De nat. deorum 3.49; Travlos (1988) 302, 317fig. 400. 42 SIG2 in 1064; Mellor (1975) 106. 43 Sherk (1969) 138.

44 Pelling (1990) 33; however, Plutarch makes it clear that Sulla spared only a few.

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 99

utterances and oracles announcing victory were now sent out to theRomans' (Plut. Sulla 17.1). The favour shown to Sulla by a healingsanctuary is of particular interest, given the several healing associationsin the accounts of his life, culminating in his death, but including hisinterest in Amphiaraos at Oropos.45 Perhaps it was this veryambivalence between the semi-mystic associations noted above - theapproval of an oracle sits well with the portent of divine rain - and theparticularly irreligious behaviour of Sulla that made him such anintrusive feature of the Roman expansion.

Sulla, Eleusis and Athens

Appian tells us of Sulla's travels from northern Greece to Thebes andon to Athens (Mith. 30). Plutarch tells us that Sulla had been rapidlyinitiated into 'the mysteries' on his entry to Athens (Plut. Sulla 26.1:'on the third day he came to anchor in Peiraeus. He was now initiatedinto the mysteries'). Although this is most readily taken as referring tothe Eleusinian Mysteries, this is not certain.46

Pausanias does not mention Sulla's travels, which, with theexception of Thebes and Athens, were outside the geographical scopehe had set himself, and thus of no interest to him. This may alsoexplain why Pausanias makes no mention of Sulla's later declarationof the freedom of Ilion, Chios, Lycia, Rhodes and Magnesia (Appian,Mith. 61). Nor does he mention an initiation of Sulla into theEleusinian Mysteries.

Pausanias was himself apparently an initiate (it is hard not tointerpret 1.38.7 thus),47 and the Eleusinian Mysteries were importantto him, above all for their sanctity (5.1 o. 1). While the rites themselvesremained mainly unchanged in the Roman period (as far as we candeduce from our sources), the Mysteries were at their height inPausanias' day, as the extensive Roman building indicates.48

Unfortunately for his modern readers, a dream prevented Pausaniasfrom describing the sanctuary and its rites (1.38.7). Although they45 On Trophonios as a healer, Pausanias notes at Lebadeia images which may be of Asklepios

and Hygeia or Trophonios and Herkyna (a personification of a local river), and thesimilarity of the images of Trophonios and Asklepios and their common association withsnakes (9.39.3-4)- Parker (1983) 213 n.31 on bathing in the cults of Asklepios, Trophoniosand Amphiaraos. On Trophonios in the Roman period (based primarily on Pausanias),Levin (1989) 1637-42. 46 Clinton (1989b) 1503.

47 Pace Habicht (1985) 156, there is nothing definitive in Pausanias to prove that he was aninitiate, although all the signs are that he was (refs in Habicht).

48 E.g. Alderink (1989).

ioo Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

were perhaps not as significant in Sulla's day, in Pausanias' view,from the perspective of the second century AD, they would have beenin all probability of considerable importance. Sulla's initiation, if itoccurred at all, would give the effect of Athens being destroyed by oneof its own. Had Pausanias chosen to mention this, it would havereinforced the message of Sulla's impiety, but it would be uncharac-teristic of Pausanias to attack someone in this way if such an attackdid not arise naturally from his subject. And on the subject of Eleusishe is exceptionally quiet, not in fact mentioning the initiation of anyindividual.

Pausanias makes much of Sulla's depredations of cities andsanctuaries. Sulla most famously destroyed much of Athens, althoughonly one of Pausanias' references to Sulla occurs in his chapters onAthens. We know some of Sulla's actions from Plutarch, whoconcentrates on the damage he caused in the Peiraeus, including thedestruction of Philon's arsenal {Sulla 14.7; Strabo 9.1.15; Appian,Mith. 40).49 And we know of the looting of works of art by Sulla'sforces,50 including Lucian's report of the removal of a painting byZeuxis (£euxis or Antiochos 3).51 Pliny (NH 36.45) tells us that Sullatook to Rome columns (plural, but an unspecified number) from thetemple of Olympian Zeus, a long-standing and unfinished monumentwhich was to be of future interest to Roman emperors, most notablyHadrian (see below, pp. 172—5). His intention, according to Pliny,was to use them to adorn the temples on the Capitol; in fact, the mostprominent usage was to be on the temple of Jupiter OptimusMaximus which was burnt down in 83 BG, after Sulla's looting.52

Although Pausanias gives much attention to the temple of OlympianZeus, it is in the context of Hadrian's completion of it, and he makesno mention of Sulla's removal of columns from it.

Pausanias is one of several sources for the destruction by burning ofthe Odeion of Perikles. He places the blame for this firmly on Sulla(1.20.4), while Appian, in contrast to Pausanias, says that Aristionand a few other Athenians burnt the Odeion themselves in order todeprive Sulla of wood to use against the Akropolis (Mith. 38). Aristionis also mentioned by Pausanias, but as the man who 'persuaded theAthenians to prefer Mithridates to the Romans' (1.20.5; also, see

49 On the Peiraeus in general, Garland (1987); Travlos (1988) 340-63; von Eickstedt (1991).50 Garland (1987) 56, 190; Larsen (1938) 426, and on looting from the Akropolis. On Sulla's

possible responsibility for the disappearance of a statue from Athens, Munn (1993) 182-3 n.94.51 Pollitt (1990) 151-3, (1983) 64. 52 Abramson (1974), esp. 8-22.

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla i o i

below, p. 207), a view with which Plutarch [Sulla 12.1) concurs (andcf. Strabo 9.1.20). In saying this, Pausanias is laying a heavyresponsibility on Aristion as it was this favouritism which provokedSulla's destruction of Athens (so too the deprivation by Sulla of halfthe territory of Thebes, which had sided with Athens against Rome,9.7.4). There is a footnote to this tale: in Pausanias' account, it isSulla's maltreatment of Aristion as a suppliant which caused his owndeath (1.20.7; see below, p. 105).

It may be that Pausanias was unaware of an alternative version ofthe story of the destruction of the Odeion, although it would seemstrange that it should be known to his contemporary, Appian, whosework may well have been published by then and thus perhapsavailable to Pausanias. It is possible that he was deliberatelysuppressing the version he does not give in order to keep Sulla in asbad a light as possible, but we have no means of knowing if this is so.Pausanias notes that the Odeion of Perikles had been rebuilt afterSulla's destruction (self-evidently this was true), and he may not haveknown the circumstances of the rebuilding. In fact, it was repairednot long after Sulla's time by Ariobarzanes Philopator of Cappadocia(65—52 BC), as we are informed by Vitruvius (5.9.1) and twohonorary inscriptions.53 It is possible that it was also Ariobarzaneswho made good Sulla's damage to the theatre of Dionysos (notmentioned by Pausanias).54

Pausanias also talks of the removal by Sulla of the shields dedicatedto Zeus Eleutherios after Thermopylai in the eponymous stoa in theAgora (10.21.5).

One action of Sulla's of which we do not hear from Pausanias wasthe removal from Athens of a library consisting mainly of the works ofAristotle and Theophrastus (Plut. Sulla 26.1; Strabo 13.1.54). Thisincident was not the first such example.55 Strabo says that the librarywas subsequently sold; he does not say whether Sulla himself wasresponsible for this but, although he is not portrayed as being asboorish as Mummius, there is no hint in any of the sources that he waspersonally cultured enough to wish to use it. Indeed, the quotationattributed to him by Plutarch - T was not sent to Athens by theRomans to learn its history, but to subdue its rebels' {Sulla 13.4) -strongly suggests the opposite. One can but speculate as to whyPausanias did not mention the library: his background would lead53 IG 112 3426 for the architects; IG n2 3427 for honours to Ariobarzanes. Travlos (1971) 387.54 T r a v l o s ( 1971 ) 5 3 8 . 55 Gr i f f in ( 1 9 9 4 ) 6 9 3 .

102 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

one to expect him to be particularly appalled by the theft of a libraryand not to remain silent if he knew of it.

The attention given to the physical destruction of Athens inPausanias' account is limited. He gives more attention to Sulla'sactions against people, such as his locking into the Kerameikos anumber of Athenians and subsequently decimating them (1.20.6;Plut. Sulla 14.1-5; also, see above, pp. 21-2). Similarly, for theAthenians the Sullan incursion 'cost them such fearful sufferings' (9.6.4).

That Pausanias saw the visit of Sulla as marking a turning point inthe history of Athens is clear from his words that 'although Athenssuffered thus in the Roman war, it flourished again in the reign ofHadrian' (1.20.7). The implication that Sulla's actions ushered in aperiod of just over two hundred years of backwater status is clear,with a direct juxtaposition of'suffered' and 'flourished'. The accuracyor otherwise of this assertion is better assessed when the reign ofHadrian is considered, but here it may be noted that the Hadrianicperiod is rightly, and not for the only time, seen as a crucial point inAthens' later prosperity, and that the late Republican and earlyImperial periods are seen to have been undistinguished in Athens.

Sulla and the rest of Greece

Sulla's impact was felt well beyond Athens, and here too Pausaniashas comments: Sulla 'took votive offerings {anathemata) from Olympiaand Epidauros, and he took from Delphi all that the Phokians hadleft' (9.7.5). The latter presumably refers to the plundering of theofferings from the sanctuary at Delphi by the Phokians in order toraise a mercenary army during the third Sacred War of the midfourth century (cf. Diodorus Siculus 16.23). Plundering of offeringswas also cited above in relation to Mummius' deprivations ofCorinth, where Pausanias refers to his carrying off anathemata. As alsonoted, throughout Pausanias' writings, art and piety are frequentlyinextricably entwined — here the anathemata may be presumed at leastto have included works of art.

Elsewhere in Greece, Pausanias refers to Sulla's treatment ofThebes and Alalkomenai as 'similar' to that of Athens (9.33.6),adding that on Helikon is a statue of Dionysos by Myron dedicated bySulla after he had taken it from Orchomenos. Further, 'he committedyet another outrage at Alalkomenai by carrying off the very image(agalma) of Athena' (9.33.6; and below, p. 137). These acts had

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 103

consequences, contributing towards the illness that killed him,although the immediate cause of his death is given as his maltreatmentof a suppliant (1.20.7).

Plutarch too refers to Sulla's carrying off works from Olympia,Epidauros and Delphi, the latter including the 'little golden image(agalmation) of Apollo from Delphi which he always carried in hisbosom when he was in battle' (Plut. Sulla 29.6). But Plutarch puts thisin a different light, saying that Sulla, in order to raise funds for thewar, sent for the kallista kai polutelestata of the anathemata at Epidaurosand Olympia, the latter adjective translated by Frazer as 'mostprecious', although 'opulent' is perhaps preferable. There is noimplication of concern for the aesthetic value of the objects, and oneshould not expect such concern of most people of Sulla's time — andcertainly not of the Sulla portrayed by our sources — but we should ofsomeone of Plutarch's and Pausanias' time. Sulla's attitude in thisregard is comparable to that of Mummius, whose lack of aestheticsensitivity has already been discussed. Sulla attempted to strike adifferent deal with the Delphic Amphictyony, requesting the god'streasure for safekeeping or, it is added, to spend and restore in kindlater. That there is no genuine sense of consideration or piety in themanner of the request is clear from Sulla's rejection of the discouragingnoises heard by his representative from the god at Delphi (Plut. Sulla12.4-5)-

Plutarch concurs with Pausanias in saying that Sulla had manyobjects removed from Delphi, including the silver bowl of Kroisos (cf.Hdt. 1.51), which had to be cut into pieces to be transported [Sulla12.6). The cutting into pieces of the pithos causes Plutarch to remarkthat contemporary opinion had been that, in contrast to Sulla, evenTitus Flamininus, Manilius Acilius and Aemilius Paullus 'had notonly spared the sanctuaries of the Greeks, but had even madeadditional gifts to them, and greatly increased their honour anddignity' {Sulla 12.2). Indeed Plutarch mentions the dedications ofFlamininus at Delphi {Flam. 12.6-7; see above, p. 96), and hisaccount of Aemilius' triumphal procession makes no reference to theviolation of any temple or sanctuary (see above, p. 81 n.4).56

And yet, like Mummius, Sulla dedicated objects; however, unlikethose of Mummius, Pausanias does not mention his dedicationsneutrally. Speaking of what he regards as the second finest work of

56 Levin (1989) 1601—3 on Roman attitudes to Delphi in the period up to Sulla.

104 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece i

Myron (a typically precise distinction, notable for its secondary statusin this context), which was dedicated by Sulla at Helikon, Pausaniassays 'it was not Sulla's to dedicate: he took it from the Minyans ofOrchomenos. This is what the Greeks call worshipping god with otherpeople's incense' (9.30.1) Thus Pausanias' feeling for piety andappropriateness is again apparent: the dedication may be appropriate,but not the dedicator. The idea of Romans, even conqueringRomans, dedicating in Greek sanctuaries is not seen by Pausanias asinappropriate/^^; it is however, in his view, inappropriate to Sulla.57

Sulla's character

From Pausanias' words on Athens, we may infer that Sulla's actionsand hybris against people were of greater consequence to Pausaniasthan the damage inflicted on the physical attributes of the city.Plutarch also gives instances of Sulla's personal cruelty, his actions'causing all men to regard him with fear and horror because of hismurdering his dearest friends' (Comparison of Lysander and Sulla 2.4).For Plutarch, the destruction was pointless as Athens was alreadyreduced to starvation [Sulla 12.1-2), a manifestation of his belief thatSulla 'was possessed by some dreadful and inexorable passion for thecapture of Athens', perhaps because 'he was fighting with a sort ofardour against the shadow of the city's former glory', or from sheeranger at being abused by the tyrant Aristion [Sulla 13.1). Thus theirrationality of Sulla is forcefully communicated, and should be seenin conjunction with the highly personal accounts of his actions.

Pausanias sees Sulla's actions as a personal failing: 'Sulla's treatmentof Athens was harsh and alien to the Roman character' (9.33.6). Inthe same way, he says that 'Sulla treated the mass of the Athenianswith a cruelty unworthy of a Roman' (1.20.7). The former passagecontinues to note similar behaviour at Thebes, Orchomenos andAlalkomenai. The personal element is followed through to the(literally) bitter end for Sulla, whose death was by horrible lice-bornedisease (9.33.6; Plut. Sulla 36).58 The commonly related theme ofprevious good fortune is a topos also reflected in this connection:'that was the miserable end of what the world had once esteemed his57 For a revisionist view of Sulla's activities in Greece (among other aspects of his life),

Keaveney (1982); but note reviews by Briscoe (1985) and Stockton (1984). On Sulla ingeneral, most recently Seager (1994).

58 On the identification of Sulla's disease as phthiriasis, and why 'lice' is a more accuratetranslation than 'worms' (as B. Perrin, Loeb edn.), Keaveney and Madden (1982) 90;against phthiriasis (and lice), Africa (1982) 1-7. Also, Carney (1961).

Introduction, Mummius and Sulla 105

good fortune' (9.33.6). And yet Pausanias is careful to distance anyidea that Sulla's death was a form of divine retribution for hiscruelty towards the Athenians, attributing it still to divine vengeancebut rather for his impiety towards the suppliant Aristion (1.20.7).59

That Pausanias' account contains an element of personal feelingabout Sulla is suggested by the fact that, although Plutarch attributeshis death to the same cause, he attributes the origin of the disease tothe much more mundane cause of Sulla's fondness for loose living{Sulla 36.1 ).60 In Appian's account (BC 1.105), Sulla dies within aday of contracting a fever (of which he had warning in a dream),and there is no suggestion of impiety or of his meeting an appropriatefate.

Greek history has yielded several examples of bodily mortificationamong prominent people, such as Cassander who 'hunted to deaththe whole house of Alexander' and as an implied result, 'he swelledwith a dropsy, and that bred worms in his body while he was stillalive' (Paus. 9.7.2); and Galerius, who was eaten by worms frominside out (Lactantius, On the deaths of the persecutors 33) .61 Self-inflicteddeath by bodily mortification is perhaps most spectacularly attestedby the case of Kleomenes of Sparta, who cut himself repeatedly untilhe died. Herodotos, in telling the story (6.75), passes on threeexplanations current at the time for his actions, all some form ofimpiety. The third of these explanations, that he killed Argive soldiersafter taking them from the temple where they had taken refuge,brackets military success and impiety. Pausanias knew his Herodotos,and the parallel with Sulla's bodily suffering for his impiety may bemore than coincidental.

The overwhelming impression from Pausanias, then, as from otherwriters (e.g. Appian, Mith. 36, 38-9; Val. Max. 2.8.7), is of Sulla'scruelty and repression. The raison d'etre for his destruction of Athenswas the siding of Athens against the Romans (1.20.4; cf. Plut. Sulla6.12, 13.1), an element of vengeance in Sulla's actions which is notapplicable to, for example, the destruction of Corinth by Mummius,and gives it its peculiar force.

The notion of'retribution' against Sulla is noted by Alcock (1994) 101, but in connectionwith 9.33.6 rather than 1.20.7. On the moral associations of diseases such as Sulla's, Africa (1982).Keaveney and Madden (1982) 94-5, opt for liver failure brought on by alcoholism; also,Keaveney (1982) 210-11. This is supported by Seager (1994) 207.On the deaths of Cassander and Galerius, Africa (1982), pointing out that Pausanias mayhave taken his account of Cassander's death from Hieronymos of Cardia (cf. 1.9.8), and that'Cassander's malady may be just a propaganda smear' (p. 6).

CHAPTER 4

Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2:Caesar and Augustus

The bracketing of Caesar and Augustus in this chapter derives fromPausanias' own view of them as, effectively, the founders of theRoman Empire. He refers to both as basileus (e.g. 5.25.1, 2.17.3respectively), a use of terminology which is discussed in the followingpages, and which clearly places Caesar at the head of the line of solerulers, the rest of whom belong to the Imperial period, rather thanassociating him with the earlier, Republican, rulers. Such categorizationis more appropriate to the history of Roman Greece than would be aconventional Republican/imperial divide.

JULIUS CAESAR

Unlike Mummius and Sulla, Caesar appears to have been widelyregarded as a cultured man: Pliny says that he 'gave outstandingpublic importance to pictures by dedicating paintings of Ajax andMedea in front of the temple of Venus Genetrix', the implicationbeing that he was the first to do so and that he thereby set a fashion(NH 35.26, 7.126). The paintings referred to are by Timomachos ofByzantium, a contemporary of Caesar's (JV//35.136), so this does notrepresent a pursuit of antiquity.1 Suetonius refers to him as 'a mostenthusiastic collector of gems, carvings, statues, and pictures by earlyartists' (Julius 47), the latter phrase indicating a discriminatingpreference for antiques. His practice of taking with him on campaign'tessellata et sectilia pavimenta' (Suet. Julius 46) implies interest inart per se, although not necessarily the art of a previous era. Hisbuilding programme, including temples in Italy and beyond (Suet.

1 On these passages, Isager (1991) 119-20.

106

Caesar and Augustus 107

Julius 28.1, 44.1-3), is in a different category; nonetheless, it reflectshis position as the first ruler to build extensively in the Roman world.

Caesar's patronage of the arts in the widest sense was no altruisticbenefaction: when Suetonius refers to Caesar 'adorning the principalcities of Asia and Greece with magnificent public works, as well asthose of Italy and the provinces of Gaul and Spain' [Julius 28.1), hedoes so in the context of Caesar's attempts 'to win the devotion ofprinces and provinces all over the world', and puts artistic benefactionson a par with giving away thousands of prisoners, and sendingauxiliary troops. The public art is, then, purely a means to an end,however genuine Caesar's personal interest in the art he collected forhimself. There is in these references no hint of piety or of interest inreligious art; Suetonius' statement that 'in Gaul he pillaged shrinesand temples of the gods' [Julius 54.2) should perhaps be distancedfrom the present context since this refers to the gods of Rome's enemies.

It is not as a destroyer that Caesar is regarded, either by Pausaniasor by other literary sources; this in itself marks him off from Mummiusand Sulla. He is known to have made the first contribution towardsthe funding for the 'Roman Agora' in Athens,2 but these buildingsreceive no mention in Pausanias; his interest is rather in Caesar as, inhis view, the father of the system of government which still prevailedunder the Roman rule of his own day. It is no coincidence that all butone of Pausanias' references to Caesar concern Corinth, the city here-founded as a veteran colony some hundred years after its destructionby Mummius. The picture painted by our sources, and confirmed byarchaeology, is of a century of emptiness, apart only from thecontinuation of the Isthmian games, initially at Sikyon and, after there-foundation, at the sanctuary of Poseidon at the Isthmus of Corinth,attested solely by Pausanias (2.2.2). As Williams has put it, after 146BG, 'For 102 years Corinth remained a ruin, probably with squatters,but without a political life. During this interval the land thatpreviously formed the politeia of Corinth was the ager publicus of Rome,with its use determined by leasing in Rome itself.'3

Given this picture, the continuation of the games, to whichPausanias is our only witness, is of greater interest than it mightotherwise be, as an exception to the process of cessation andre-foundation. Even here, though, the movement of the games fromIsthmia to Sikyon and back compromises that continuity (as Oscar

2 Hoff (1989a); Shear (1981) 358-60. 3 Williams (1987) 26.

108 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

Broneer remarks, Pausanias' phraseology implies, rather than states,that the games were held at Sikyon) .4 Epigraphical evidence indicatesthat the Isthmian games were returned to Corinth at some timebetween 7 BG and AD 3. By that time, they included the Caesarea,instituted probably in 30 BG, and alternating with the Isthmiangames.5 Other agonistic foundations of the period included thequinquennial games at Octavian's foundation of Nikopolis after thevictory at Actium (Suet. Aug. 18.2; see below, pp. 132-3).

A greater issue arises here: Williams has argued for an earlyintroduction of emperor worship at Corinth, 'probably related to theestablishment of the Caesarea contests at Isthmia5.6 If, as Broneersays, the return of the games to Isthmia at some point between 7 BCand AD 3 included the celebration of the Caesarea, and if Williams isright in connecting the introduction of the emperor cult and theestablishment of the Caesarea at Isthmia, it appears to follow thatthe emperor cult was introduced in Augustan times, if not asprecisely as between 7 BG and 3 AD. This ties in neatly with theevidence Williams cites for an Augustan temple at Corinth orIsthmia, and with a possible Augustan date for Temple E, which heidentifies with the temple to Octavia, sister of Augustus, mentionedby Pausanias (2.3. i).7 Since Octavia died in 11 BG, if there were anyqualms about dedicating a temple to her, these would have beenovercome by 7 BG, if that is taken as the earliest date for thisinstitution. While Temple E is certainly an imperial construction,there is evidence that the west end of the forum of Corinth had beenplanned for Caesar's veterans.8

While there is much evidence for the imperial cult at Corinth at allperiods after its introduction, there was no cult of Roma untilHadrian's time (in contrast to Athens, for example, which had oneprobably from soon after the battle of Pydna in 168 BG, and perhaps as4 Broneer (1973) 67 n.2.5 Kent (1966) 28, favouring 2 BC for the return of the games to Corinth. Broneer (1973) 67 n.2

concurs with the range of dates Kent gives. Most recently, Gebhard (1993).6 Williams (1987) 29; also, 'whichever date one chooses [for the construction of Temple E], the

date is close to, and possibly related to, the addition of the Imperial Games (Sebasteia) to thealready established Caesarea and Isthmian games over which Corinth presided' (29—30,citing Kent (1966) 28 n.25 on the addition of imperial games to the Isthmian calendar underTiberius).

7 Williams (1987) 29; Williams (1989) 160: 'the earliest Temple E west of the forum wasconstructed . . . probably not much after the death of Augustus, or, possibly, as late as thereign of Caligula'; Williams cautiously goes a step further back, saying that 'one might arguethat the earliest Temple E was planned under Augustus, even if not constructed anddedicated until later' (Williams (1987) 36 n.9). 8 Williams (1989) 162.

Caesar and Augustus 109

early as the beginning of the second century).9 As a Romanre-foundation, Corinth had natural loyalties to Rome, and no need toinvent loyalties by the religio-political device of the cult of Roma.Here again, we have a sense of Corinth as somehow different, and thisremains apparent into Pausanias' day: Price notes that at Pergamonin the early second century AD, 'the successor of a dead member [of alocal association] was to provide incense for the funeral. The use ofincense at funerals was a Roman custom, which is otherwise found inthe Greek East only at the funeral of a Roman lady at the Romancolony of Corinth'.10

In other respects, Caesar does not seem to have embellished Corinth,although his abortive plan to cut a canal through the Isthmus wouldsurely have had a major impact on Corinth's potential prosperity(Suet. Julius 44.3). The area was surveyed for the project by Caligula(Suet. Gaius 21; see above, p. 86), which was subsequently started, butnot completed, by Nero (Suet. Nero 19.2, below, p. 151). It was alsocontemplated by Herodes Atticus (see below, pp. 199-200). Pliny,listing attempts to cut the canal, cites the fates of those who attemptedthe task as evidence that it was 'an act of sacrilege' (JVY/4.10); thistheme is picked up in subsequent discussions (see below, p. 152).11

An ambiguity emerges between Caesar as restorer of what Mummiushad destroyed, and as completer of the process of transformation fromGreek to Roman that Mummius had so effectively started in Corinth,and thus in what became the new province of Achaia. If Caesar'sre-foundation of Corinth acts to some extent as an 'antidote' toMummius' destruction, the position of Corinth in the process oftransition from ancient to modern, Roman, Greece is evident inPausanias.

I suggest that Pausanias regarded Corinth as special, in that hebelieved it to be the first seat of Roman power in the form that heknew it in Greece during his lifetime. As noted in the discussion ofMummius, he clearly harbours resentment against the replacementof ancient Greeks by modern Romans. In addition, the conspicuousfigure of Mummius is central to the process of Romanization and,although his activities affect other sites (such as Olympia), it is onCorinth and its environs that they are centred.

The subsequent re-invention of Corinth, set in train by Caesar and9 Mellor(i975) 101-2; the cult in Athens is placed in the third century by Williams (1987) 30-1.

10 Price (1984a) 90.11 On the history of, and evidence for, attempts to cut the canal, Wiseman (1978) 48-51.

110 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

followed through by later emperors, is in contrast to the Romanhistory of either Patrai (in part a veteran colony like Corinth, in partformed by a synoikism of Greeks, unlike Corinth) or Athens (unlikeCorinth or Patrai, a city of genuine continuity), and particular studyis needed here. Pausanias is often misleading about provincialadministration;12 but at least as important is that he believes what hewrites, not that he is right to do so. As previously emphasized, whilehistorical accuracy is important as a gauge of Pausanias' writings, it isfor the reader in some respects secondary to his beliefs and the waythey affected his writing.

Pausanias and the Caesarian re-foundation of Corinth

Turning to Pausanias' references to the re-foundation of Corinth byCaesar in more detail, it has been noted that the Isthmian gamescontinued after 146 (2.2.2) - the implication is that cessation wouldhave been expected in such circumstances, and that the Isthmiangames are an exception, perhaps a unique one. Pausanias' account ofthe Mummian—Caesarian history of Corinth may be seen in twophases: the destruction and its effects, and the re-foundation.

The destruction is noted as thorough: Pausanias relates thatdismantling the walls of fortified towns was standard Roman practice,and that 'Corinth was laid utterly waste' by Mummius (2.1.2; cf.2.3.7). Of visible remnants, 'the remarkable objects in the city includesome remains of ancient Corinth, but most of them date from theperiod of the restoration' (2.2.6). How thorough the destruction wascannot be fully ascertained until all of ancient Corinth has beenexcavated (which at the moment seems unlikely to occur as it coveredan extensive area and some at least lies under the modern town), butfrom what has been brought to light, Pausanias' assessment seemsaccurate. In spite of saying that most of the objects left in his time datefrom after the Caesarian re-foundation, Pausanias mentions a varietyof pre-Roman objects (2.2.6-7), including gilded and painted xoanaof Dionysos made from the tree in which Pentheus hid to spy on theBacchai. Also, a temple of Fortune and its image; a shrine to all thegods; and statues of several gods, including Hermes and his temple.

The contrast of past and present, of Greek and Roman, runsthrough much of Pausanias' writings, not least concerning Corinth.12 E.g. Pausanias' statements on the governorship of Greece, criticized by Accame (1946) 7,

and Ferrary (1988) 203-4.

Caesar and Augustus 111

However, the standard view of him as disdainful of the present, andparticularly of its physical manifestations, is not borne out by hisaccount of Corinth, probably for no more sinister a reason than thelack of ancient buildings and objects on which he himself remarks.Here he mentions the temple of Octavia, sister of Augustus (2.3.1),which was discussed above and identified with Temple E by Williams,and refers to baths, most of which may be presumed to be Romanrather than Greek. Of these baths, he selects two, assigning one toHadrian and one, 'the most celebrated', to 'Eurykles, a Spartan'(2.3.5), probably the Hadrianic benefactor rather than his ancestor,the Eurykles mentioned by Strabo (8.5.1) as his contemporary, andthe leading citizen of Sparta, responsible for much of its embellishmentin the Augustan period.13 In either case, this is another prominentmention of a Roman building, albeit of a type most characteristicallyRoman. That he should mention this one is attributable to its being'the most celebrated' of the baths; that at least one, and perhaps both,of the baths he mentions should be Hadrianic is indicative of hisspecial feeling for Hadrian. He mentions no other specific examples ofRoman baths at Corinth. A bath was built at Isthmia in the secondcentury, but whether or not before Pausanias' time is unclear;14 hecertainly omits the arch of the second half of the first century ADthrough which, as Roux observed, he presumably passed on his wayto the site.15 In the same passage, he refers to Hadrian's facilitating theplentiful water supply to Corinth by having it brought from LakeStymphalos (also referred to at 8.22.3). Later, on the road from theAgora towards Sikyon, he refers to a 'Music-Hall' (2.3.6) — again, nodetails are given, but it may be that of Herodes Atticus at Corinth(Philostr. VS 551) - but this is only a passing mention, and is not astrong contrast with the omission of Herodes' nymphaion at Olympia(see above, pp. 37-8; on this passage, see below, p. 198).16

Not only is this objectively a good sample of Roman publicbuildings, but it covers a broad span of the empire, from Augustus toHadrian. This is all the more striking in view of his omission of13 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 104, 111; the latter identification is argued by Frazer 111.25.14 In the most recent publications on the bath, it is dated 'second century' (Yegiil (1993) 95)

and 'apparently' second century (Gregory (1993b) 149). Stylistic comparanda with thebath's black and white mosaic 'suggest a date in the mid second century' (Packard (1980)344). In the latter case, Pausanias may well have seen the bath.

15 Roux (1958) 92; Gregory and Mills (1984).16 Broneer believed in the identity of the buildings mentioned by Pausanias and Philostratos,

seeing it as a late first-century AD construction remodelled by Herodes, perhaps afterPausanias' visit (Broneer (1932) 1, 64, 144-6).

112 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

buildings comparable to those listed here, such as Hadrian's aqueductin Athens, the baths by the Olympieion in Athens, and the nymphaionat Olympia. The ascription of these omissions to Pausanias' dislike ofmodern buildings does not explain their presence in his account ofCorinth. It is partly explicable by his introductory observation that'the remarkable objects in the city include some remains of ancientCorinth, but most of them date from the period of the restoration'(2.2.6), but that still leaves him the straightforward option ofomitting the modern objects and buildings.

Why, then, did Pausanias not reduce his discussion of RomanCorinth to the level of that of Roman Olympia or of so much ofnon-Hadrianic Roman Athens? I suggest that the reason whyCorinth could not be ignored or given only minimal attention,however unpalatable its present appearance, was that it was thecornerstone of the Greece that Pausanias was visiting, in that he sawthe type of government by which Greece was then ruled as stemmingfrom Corinth and specifically from its re-foundation under Caesar.To omit, or put too little emphasis on, Corinth would be to miss anopportunity to explain the genesis of that system of government, toexplain why Greece was in the state it was, and to miss a furtheropportunity, to evoke a past world, the Greek world of Corinth ofwhich he saw comparatively few physical remains in front of him.This puts Corinth in a different category from the other cities hevisited, where he had a wealth of surviving Greek objects andbuildings to describe. In those cases, he had no need to evoke a Greekpast by reference to what was no longer there, since his purpose wasfulfilled simply by description of what was there.

As in Athens, the local inhabitants are given attention by Pausanias:'the old population of Corinth is entirely gone: the present populationis a colony sent out by the Romans' (2.1.2). Similarly, in writing of aportrait at Olympia of Alexander as Zeus, he says 'it was dedicated bya Corinthian, not one of the ancient Corinthians, but one of themodern population on whom the emperor (basileus) bestowed Corinth'(5.25.1; on the word basileus in this context, see below, pp. 114-16).Similarly, he refers to the Corinthians as 'the youngest of thePeloponnesians' (5.1.2); and to 'the destruction of Corinth by theRomans and the extinction of its old inhabitants' (2.3.7).

Pausanias thus reiterates on several occasions the theme of the lackof continuity in the population. The last reference in the previous

Caesar and Augustus 113

paragraph arises during his discussion of the discontinuation ofestablished local rites, which is explained by the extinction of theinhabitants and which deliberately distances the refounded city fromits Greek predecessor.17 This is what Williams, remarking that theRomans in Corinth 'were not trying to coat their new religiousfacilities in the colony with any spirit of Hellenism' has called 'editingfor contemporaneity'.18 As he says, the 'colonists were determined toreshape the Corinthian landscape more to their liking. No apparentsympathy was shown for preservation of the Greek temple plan or ofthe operation of the cult [of Apollo] as known in the Greek period'.While this policy is widely applicable to the Roman period, it seems tohave been adopted from the earliest, hence its early place in thediscussion, with much of imperial Corinth still to be built.

Although it remains unspoken in this instance, the deliberatecessation of established local rites must have been a source of someconcern to Pausanias: not only was he very conscious of the role ofreligion and cult, but he was equally aware of the importance of thelocal element in the fabric of the Greece that he saw and described.

It was noted above that Pausanias says that he had very fewphysical remains of Greek Corinth in front of him; and some of whatwas there he may have thought too far remodelled by the Romansto count any longer as Greek — the cursory mention of the 'templewith a statue of Apollo', if accurately taken as a reference to thesixth-century foundation on Temple Hill, may well reflect there-orientation and re-structuring it underwent by the Romans.19

Williams says that while the Romans 'knew about and tried torevive the Greek sanctuaries of the city', they 'were not concerned torestore them to their original form or recreate their original Greekritual with any great precision or accuracy. Roman 'modernization'seems to have been much preferred to ancient Greek authenticity'.20

While this is true, it may be observed that in Corinth (arguably thebest case for examining such issues), although some cults weredeliberately revived in an attempt to re-create or 're-invent' a pastworld, or at least to give it a new continuity, this was not done assome idle intellectual exercise, but with real buildings and objects.17 This passage is cited by Eisner as evidence that in Corinth, 'the place itself had imparted its

identity to' the inhabitants (Eisner (1992) 15), but Pausanias' reference is to the cessation ofrites in honour of Medea, the opposite of the continuation of them which one would expect ifEisner is right (also, see above, p. 95^34). 18 Williams (1987) 31.

19 Williams (1987) 31-2, above. 20 Williams (1987) 32.

114 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

One such, perhaps the best case, is that of the 'Apollo' temple justmentioned.

The 'falsification' inherent in the 're-invention' of the Apollotemple would not have appealed to Pausanias: throughout hiswritings, as I have argued, he is concerned not only with authenticity,but with detaching the layer of 'Romanitas' wherever possible. Inother words, he was concerned with seeing what was original andsurviving Greek cult as opposed to either Roman cult or a Romanveneer. It may be for this reason that Corinth apparently held limitedappeal for him; he has stressed the eradication of its population, andthat of its cults and traditions must inevitably follow. And it was, forhim, confirmed by their deliberate suppression, as in the cases he citesat 2.3.7. ^ does not appear to me that in the case of Corinth at least,the revival of interest in Corinthian culture and cult exemplified forPausanias the 'good' side of Roman interest in Greece.

While the lack of Greek objects may have led naturally to aconcentration on the population, the picture of destruction is mademore complete by the absence of indigenous inhabitants, and thepicture of transformation, of Romanization, made clear by thepresence of the imported (and imposed) population of re-settledveterans. In a world where antiquity legitimizes, the cessation oflong-established cult, and the portrayal of the Corinthians as 'theyoungest of the Peloponnesians' (5.1.2) implicitly undermines the'authenticity' of Corinth.

Pausanias' altitude to Caesar

Of the personal importance of Caesar to the new city there can be nodoubt: Pausanias refers to him as the person who repopulatedCorinth (2.1.2), and as its oikistes (2.3.1). Further, it was Caesarwho, in Pausanias' view, 'instituted at Rome the system of governmentunder which we live' (2.1.2; the sentiment is also expressed at3.11.4). In other words, not only did Caesar have a decisive impacton Corinth, but he had the same effect (in this respect at least) onRome itself. It may or may not be so, but Pausanias clearly believedit was so.

Pausanias refers to Caesar as basileus (5.1.2, 5.25.1; for the latterpassage, see above, p. 112). Both Frazer and Jones (Loeb edn)translate the word as 'emperor', and it is indeed the word regularlyused by Pausanias for the emperors, as it is in contemporary literature

Caesar and Augustus 115

and documents (and is so used as early as the reign of Augustus21). Butit may be objected that Caesar cannot be counted an emperor, andthat the translation is, therefore, misleading. However, 'king' wouldbe even more misleading, and no educated writer would interpret theword basileus, used in reference to an emperor, as meaning 'king'.22

Indeed, this is an important point to clarify since sources speak ofCaesar's seeking after kingship, despite his insistence that he did notwant to be given the title of basileus (e.g. Appian, BC 2.107-8, 150;Cassius Dio 44.1 o. 1). A much more satisfactory translation of basileushere would be 'sole ruler'. This and related issues will be discussed inconnection with 3.11.4 (see below, p. 131); but here it may be stressedthat this linguistic usage serves neatly to emphasize the similaritybetween Caesar's position and that of the emperors who followed himand with it, suggests Roman imperial perceptions of him as effectivelythe first emperor, something his actions could readily be used tojustify, as also could the opposition they caused and the manner of hisdeath. But the context of the use of basileus by Pausanias in writing ofCaesar has the effect of equating his power and his rank with those ofthe emperors proper.23 There is a danger of over-interpretation here:to provincial Greeks, Caesar was the first absolute ruler, and theniceties of the Roman constitution may well have been an irrelevance.Such continuity would be all the greater given that the Romansystem could in this respect readily be grafted onto establishedHellenistic kingship in the east.24

The implications of this usage for Pausanias' attitude to Caesar arenot readily fathomable: perhaps he is simply, maybe carelessly, usingan anachronistic phrase from the vantage point of the long-establishedempire; perhaps he means to elevate Caesar to a position parallel withthe emperors. Pausanias uses the word autokrator in reference to anemperor (perhaps Vespasian, 8.29.3; see above, p. 82), and possibly of

21 Millar (1977) 613, citing its use in poetry; for an early prose use, in the second half of the firstcentury AD, Spawforth (1994a) 214. Basileus is the standard word for emperor in, forexample, Philostratos. 22 Millar (1977) 614.

23 Kevin Carroll, writing of the inscription concerning Nero on the Parthenon (below), suggeststhat Nero may have seen an equivalence of basileus and imperator, and that basileus woulddescribe the 'rank or position' of rulers, rather than their power (Carroll (1982) 39-40).Spawforth takes the word basileis used by Appian (BC 2.70) to mean 'commanders'(Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 95), and such a usage would explain what otherwise wouldbe anomalies. C.P.Jones also notes an equivalence of basileus and emperor, but adds that insome literary sources, basileus 'may simply mean "great man", like the Latin rex' (Jones(1978) 164 n.47; also, 14). Millar (1977) 613, observes that 'no emperor ever used the title rex\

24 Millar (1977) 361, 448, 611-14.

116 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

Titus (8.16.5); it is also used in the inscription of Nero on theParthenon (see below, p. 154 n.41). It is hard to see how autokratorcould mean anything that basileus does not.25 Whether or notPausanias saw Caesar as anything other than, effectively, anotheremperor, at least he does not show signs of seeing him as a tyrant.That others did see him as a tyrant is implicit in the only literaryreference, that of Cassius Dio, to the purposeful erection of bronzestatues of Brutus and Cassius close to those of the TyrannicidesHarmodios and Aristogeiton after the assassination of Caesar, 'thusintimating that Brutus and Cassius had emulated their example'(47.20.4).26 These statues presumably did not outlast Philippi: atleast, Pausanias refers to two sets of statues of Tyrannicides in theAgora of Athens (1.8.5), but makes no mention of statues of Brutusand Cassius (or indeed of Brutus and Cassius at all).

AUGUSTUS

More buildings were put up in the provinces under Augustus thanunder any emperor with the exception of Hadrian.27 This is in starkcontrast to the eras of Mummius, Sulla and, less so, Caesar, andexemplifies the impact the Augustan age had on the cultural andreligious life of the provinces, as it did on their political, administrativeand financial lives. From this point, we can begin to see patterns ofbuilding, to deduce purpose behind them, and to assess the accuracy,completeness, and slant of the various written accounts, includingthat of Pausanias.

The buildings were extensively available to Pausanias, both in hishome territory of Asia Minor, and in his chosen area of interest,mainland Greece. In addition to Pausanias' account and those ofother authors we have, uniquely, the emperor's own account of hisartistic and cultural benefactions in the Res Gestae.28 The latter

25 Cassius Dio regularly uses autokrator to mean emperor. The encomium EIZ BAZIAEIA,possibly by Aelius Aristides, also uses the word autokrator, apparently without signifiying achange in meaning; whether one believes it is by Aristides and therefore contemporary withPausanias (as Jones (1972a), Barnes (1989) 254), or a third- or even fourth-century AD work(as e.g. Stertz (1979) esp. 174), is not material (neither Jones nor Stertz raise the question).Most recently, Librale (1994).

26 Cited by Thompson (1987) 9. Plut. Brutus 24.1 refers to Brutus being well received in Athens.Pausanias makes no mention of Brutus or Cassius. 27 MacMullen (1959) 209.

28 Brunt and Moore (1967). Whether Augustus detailed any such benefactions in the thirteenbooks of autobiography he wrote covering the period to 25 BC (when he was, of course, in alesser position to make such benefactions), cannot now be ascertained (Lewis (1993) 669-89).

Caesar and Augustus 117

perhaps needs to be treated with more scepticism than any otheraccount, since on occasion accuracy may have yielded to a desire toimpress, but it is nonetheless invaluable.

Pausanias, Augustus and Asia Minor

Before considering the contribution of Augustus to the embellishmentof Greece, and how Pausanias regards that contribution, I begin byexamining Augustus' actions as they affected Pausanias' nativeterritory of Asia Minor. Although Pausanias lived long after Augustus'time, and I have argued that the world he lived in was shaped to aconsiderable extent by Hadrian, the beginnings of the processoccurred under Augustus, and it is not least his legacy that surroundedand formed Pausanias.

In assessing any view of an emperor, including those presented inPausanias' writings, it is fundamental to look at the imperial cult,described by Peter Garnsey and Richard Sailer as 'Rome's mainexport to the empire'.29 This is all the more true when the view underconsideration is that of a writer from Asia Minor since, as Simon Pricehas observed, 'the evidence for this area is far richer than for any otherpart of the empire'.30 A wide variety of literary, epigraphical,historical and archaeological evidence can be brought to bear, andPrice's study of the imperial cult in Asia Minor carefully draws thesethreads together. Much of this section is indebted to his work.

In the present context, it is important to remember that, as Priceputs it, 'the imperial cult . . . was probably the most important cultin the province of Asia'.31 As he also says, the imperial cult 'wasparticularly common in Asia Minor', largely because it could betterbe matched to the traditional religious practices of that area, notablydivine kingship.32 The imperial cult was, then, a fundamental realityto someone of Pausanias' background and upbringing; further, itwas at its peak, at least if judged by extant altars,33 in the time ofHadrian, the presumed period of Pausanias' youth. Apart fromHadrian, there are more altars in Asia Minor to Augustus than toany other emperor. The prominence of these altars in Pausanias' daycan safely be presumed. In addition, images and reminders ofAugustus would have been almost omnipresent in Asia Minor in theform of statues, buildings, and other manifestations of the imperial

29 Garnsey and Sailer (1987) 164. 30 Price (1984a) 20. 31 Price (1984a) 130.32 Price (1984a) 78, 235-7. 33 P r i c e (!984a) 69, 216.

118 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

presence.34 Even in the calendar, Augustus was honoured in AsiaMinor, his birthday being decreed to be the start of the new year;but, as with so many aspects of the imperial presence in theprovinces, the initiative for this honour did not come from theemperor, but from the local inhabitants, in this case the koinon of Asia.35

Observing that Roman power in Asia Minor was consolidated inthe Augustan period, Price notes that 'the cities continued to organizethemselves and they, rather than Rome, were the primary centres ofattachment for their inhabitants'.36 Thus the pattern had long beenin place by Pausanias' day of an Asia Minor which was firmly Romanin terms of its political structure, but which did not owe emotionalloyalty to Rome. Such a political structure need be no more than anenabling framework, and does not dictate the cultural ties felt by thepopulation: as Price remarks, 'the dominant culture of Asia Minorwas Greek, at least by the time of the Roman empire'.37 If this is trueof the beginning of the empire (if not earlier), by Pausanias' time theGreekness of the culture must have been unchallengeable. Pausaniaswould, therefore, have been brought up in a world with a stronglyGreek ambience and, more importantly, with a Roman administrationdictating many mundane aspects of life but not central to the culturaladvancement of educated individuals like himself. This, I suggest,must have affected his approach to mainland Greece when he came totravel; and the sense of appropriateness which I have remarked onbefore would have sat ill with the Roman aspects of Greece. Thesewere fitting for Rome, but not for Greece or Asia Minor, andPausanias would not be slow to see Rome as 'other' to the inhabitantsof both Greece and Asia Minor.

The picture given by the combined weight of administrative,political, calendrical and religious evidence is of an overwhelmingRoman presence in the Asia Minor of the early imperial period and ofPausanias' time. And yet, as Price observes, 'the culture of thesecommunities was Greek, rather than Roman or indigenous, and thecult's basic characteristics were Greek rather than non-Greek . . .Many scholars are captivated by the evidence for Greek culture and

34 The imperial cult as such may perhaps be excluded since it usually did not long outlast theindividual concerned (Price (1984a) 61).

35 Price (1984a) 56; also, 'Samos, for example, decided to start a new dating system from theapotheosis of Augustus' (p. 75), and Price (1984b). This may have been a smart piece oftiming, since Augustus had refused freedom to Samos soon after 27 BC, as an inscription fromAphrodisias shows (Reynolds (1982) 104-6 no. 13; Sherk (1988) no.3).

36 Price (1984a) 2. 37 Price (1984a) 20.

Caesar and Augustus 119

imagine that it represents the whole cultural picture of the imperialperiod, but this is to be duped by Greek cultural hegemony. Therewas another world of local culture, especially in the countryside, towhich the imperial cult remained alien.'38 It seems inherentlyprobable that this is true of mainland Greeks of the imperial period asa whole, and the emphasis on the local would inevitably reflect andreinforce this.

It is very unlikely that someone as aware as Pausanias of theimportance of local sources and local variations on establishedpractices and myths would not be aware of the essential differencesbetween mainland Greece and his own home province. These factorscannot but have affected the mode of reporting he adopted and aremost apparent in his examination of the Greece that had existedbefore the coming of the Romans and that had been compromised, inpart destroyed, by that coming. In this process, Augustus was central,arguably the founding father.

Augustus and Greece

Before considering in detail Pausanias' view of Augustus and hislegacy in mainland Greece, other sources, including Augustus' ownuniquely surviving record of his achievements (or, at least, claimedachievements) may be considered. The Augustan era was one whichsaw much Greek art in Rome, and placed a considerable emphasis onits display. The use of Greek art in this period has been examined indetail by Paul Zanker, who sums up the milieu created by Augustusthus: 'the age of Augustus attached a particularly high moral value tothe practice of quoting from Classical art'.39 Many examples could begiven of imitations of familiar Classical statues, both freestandingathlete types and the undeniably religious. The latter aspect iscentral, with the imperial cult demanding an appropriate image andassociation, perhaps all the more so in areas distant from the seat ofpower.

The association of emperors with Zeus is one which could readilybe made in art: this was most fully exploited by Hadrian, for whichPausanias is an important source. But the practice among theemperors of drawing this visual parallel begins with Augustus:38 Price (1984a) 78-9.39 Zanker (1988) 197; cf. 'the acknowledged moral superiority of Greek art of the Archaic and

Classical periods' (89).

120 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

Zanker observes that 'ever since Alexander the Great, the Hellenisticworld had rendered its rulers in the guise of Zeus, and . . . Augustuswas no exception'.40 Although Pausanias mentions no such example,he would have seen one, namely the statue of Augustus as Zeus foundin the Metroon at Olympia, a building which was re-dedicated to theimperial cult, as we know from Pausanias' reference to 'statues ofRoman emperors' (5.20.9), long since corroborated by excavation.41

In fact, although Zeus was exploited as an image of centralimportance by Alexander, the systematic appropriation of Zeus byrulers goes back to his depiction on coin blazons by Philip II.42 In thesame way, in representing himself as Zeus, Augustus appropriated afixed image with strong associations and turned it to the ends ofpolitical self-promotion, furthered by its long-established intrinsicreligious connotations. Thus the use of an established image enabledAugustus effectively to harness antiquity, complete with the sanctitythat it bestowed, in advancing his claims to be (in Zanker's phrase)'the gods' representative on earth'.43

As mentioned, the practice of a ruler depicting himself as Zeus isfirst regularly associated with Alexander. Augustus, in followingAlexander's lead in this respect, also evoked the figure of Alexanderhimself, the great conqueror, a role to which a native of any of Rome'snewly acquired provinces would have been particularly sensitive.The value of evoking such an association was considerable in the farprovinces of Asia Minor and Achaia; Alexander's purpose seems notleast to have been to associate himself with the past of the world hehad conquered, and in which he sought to become accepted. With thenotion of association with Zeus, other cult aspects of Augustus, andhis own version of the imperial cult, come into play, and may brieflybe noted here.

As well as with Zeus, Augustus wished to be associated with Apollo,promoting himself as the son of Apollo, or as the 'New Apollo', as weknow from both literary evidence (e.g. Suet. Aug. 94.4; cf. Cassius Dio40 Zanker (1988) 230. On Alexander in Republican and early imperial literature, Isager

(1993), esp. 78-80 on Augustus.41 Most recently, Hitzl (1991); also, Stone (1985); Price (1984a) 160 fig. 9; Alcock (1993) 190

fig. 69; Frazer 111.622.42 'Hitherto there had been but slight allusions to Zeus on some of the minor denominations of

Philip's predecessors' (Kraay (1976) 146). To Philip also can be attributed a significantdeparture from tradition in the first recorded use of gold and ivory for statues of figures otherthan gods, namely the Macedonian royal family figured in the Philippeion at Olympia(Paus. 5.17.4, 5.20.9-10). Seiler (1986) 89-103. 43 Zanker (1988) 234.

Caesar and Augustus 121

51.1.2), and epigraphical evidence.44 Augustus also restored an'ancient temple of Apollo' at his foundation of Nikopolis (Suet. Aug.18.2; cf. 'Actius . . . Apollo', Verg. Aen. 8.704).45 An inscribed statuebase of CAD 2 refers to Gaius Caesar, son of Agrippa and adopted sonof Augustus as the 'New Ares', and later, Tiberius' son Drusus Caesarwas called 'New god Ares', and both may indicate a re-dedication ofthe mid-fifth-century temple of Ares to them.46 None of the above ismentioned by Pausanias.

Much has been said in the preceding pages about the imperial cultand its impact on Greece and Asia Minor. Although Pausaniasmentions many manifestations of the imperial cult, the only referencehe makes to it is indirect, and scornful: 'in the present age . .. men arechanged into gods no more, save in the hollow rhetoric which flatteryaddresses to power' (8.2.5). Here he is railing against modern moresrather than against individuals, and this certainly does not seem tohave disturbed his apparent affinity with Hadrian, evidence of whosecult he would have found most commonly among the imperial cultsaround him.

Augustan building in Greece

Assessment of Augustan buildings in the provinces, including those inGreece, must be made against the background of contemporarybuilding at Rome, for which we have Augustus' own statement of hisbuildings and re-buildings (RG 19-21). His claim to have restoredeighty-two temples in his sixth consulship (28 BC) is well-known, as isSuetonius' reference to Augustus' transformation of a city of brickinto a city of marble (Aug. 28.3). Perhaps more important for presentpurposes is his statement that after his victory at Actium, he returnedto the temples of Asia objects stolen by Antony (RG 24.i).47 Therestoration of objects and the restoration of temples are kindredactivities, but not parallel, since buildings could not be stolen in theway that objects could, although they could be re-dedicated, asPausanias knew well (e.g. the Metroon at Olympia just mentioned).44 Hoff (1989a) 3 and n. 16; Peppas-Delmousou discusses a statue of Apollo on the base of which

the title 'New Apollo' appears for the first time (Peppas-Delmousou (1979) 128); also, Hoff(1994) i n ) ; it is subsequently used by Nero (IG n2 3278, Sherk (1988) no. 78B, below).

45 On reflections of Actium, Zanker (1988) 82-5. 46 Shear (1981) 362-3.47 Brunt and Moore (1967) 66. Compare Antony's reported wish to repair the temple of Apollo

at Delphi (see above, p. 98 n.40).

122 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

Pausanias was presumably aware of restorations made by Augustusin his home province. As Zanker points out, the Augustan programmeof renewal of eighty ruined temples in Attica (attested by epigraphicalevidence) 'seems to be directly inspired by Augustus's campaign forthe restoration of temples in Rome'.48 The form of building in Athenscan also be paralleled: the 'Roman Agora' has been described byHomer Thompson as 'looking for all the world like the Imperial Forain Rome',49 but it is in fact closer to some of the Kaisareia of the east,50

a form which would have been familiar to Pausanias. Indeed, it hasbeen suggested on different grounds that it was a focus for the earlyimperial cult.51

Although the reference to Asia in the passage from the RG citedabove is the only occasion on which Augustus refers to his own buildingsin the provinces, his reign did in fact see more extensive building thanthat of any emperor except Hadrian. Although Augustus nowhererefers to building in Greece, there are many Augustan monuments,too many to list here. The example has been cited of the possibleAugustan temple at Corinth or Isthmia (see above, p. 108), but wehave no evidence that Augustus himself was the donor.

In his first act following his success at Actium, according toPlutarch, Octavian 'sailed to Athens, and after making a settlementwith the Greeks, he distributed the grain which remained over afterthe war among their cities' (Ant. 68.4).52 He also had himself initiatedinto the Eleusinian Mysteries (Suet. Aug. 93), as Sulla may have beenbefore him (and as rapidly - Plut. Sulla 26.1; see above, p. 99); he wasthe last emperor to be initiated until Hadrian.53 Augustus' subsequentvisits to Athens included a second initiation into the Mysteries in 19BG (Cassius Dio 51.4.1, 54.9.10).54

Relations between Athens and Augustus were not all plain sailing:Plutarch (Mor. 207F) says that Augustus spent a winter on Aigina inorder to indicate his displeasure towards Athens, from whom he tookAigina and Eretria. Bowersock, disagreeing with Graindor's date of31/30 BG for this incident, dates it to 22/1 BC.55 Cassius Dio attributes

48 Zanker (1988) 261, citing IG n2 1035.49 Thompson (1987) 10. On the Augustan date of the Roman Agora, Hoff (1994) 108 n.49.50 Shear (1981) 359-60. 51 Hoff (1994) esp. 112. 52 Hoff (1989a) 4.53 Millar notes that after Augustus' initiation, he heard a case in Rome concerning the

privileges of the Eleusinian priests (Millar (1977) 449)-54 Hoff (1989a) 4-5; Clinton (1989b) 1507-9.55 Bowersock (1964), disagreeing with Graindor (1927) 18, 39. Bowersock is followed by Hoff

(1989b) 267-8.

Caesar and Augustus 123

Augustus' ire to Athens' taking the side of Antony at Actium (54.7.2),a similar cause to that of Sulla's anger, although Augustus' reactionwas considerably more moderate. Interestingly, the same presence ofomens that characterized the advent of Sulla in Athens (see above,p. 97) is evident in this case: 'it seemed to the Athenians that the thingwhich had happened to the statue of Athena was responsible for thismisfortune; for this statue on the Akropolis, which was placed to facethe east, had turned around to the west and spat blood' (Cassius Dio54.7.3).56 For statues in other portentous contexts, see above, pp.98 n.40 and 85 on Antony and on Caligula, respectively.

There was also an unfortunately ill-documented rebellion inAthens against Rome CAD 13.57

At some point, the temple of Roma and Augustus was built on theAkropolis of Athens, the first physical embodiment in our survivingevidence of the cult of Roma in Athens, although the cult itself hadexisted there since at least the second quarter of the second century BG(see above, pp. 108—9). Pausanias omits the temple — perhaps theimperial cult was all too familiar - but his omission of it should be setagainst the fact that it is unrecorded in extant literature.

The inscription on the architrave of the temple of Roma andAugustus dates it to after Octavian's re-styling as Augustus by its useof 'Sebastos' (which, as Pausanias informs his readers, translates'Augustus', 3.11.4), although no more precise evidence is forthcoming.58

It is possible that the joint cult of Roma and Augustus had previouslyexisted in the lower city of Athens, suggested by an inscription on aseat for a priest of the cult of Roma and Augustus in the theatre ofDionysos which, unlike that on the temple, does not include the wordsep'akropolei, suggesting a situation elsewhere in Athens.59 It is relevanthere that thirteen small altars provide 'the most tangible evidence forthe existence of the imperial cult in the lower city'.60

The inscription on the temple of Roma and Augustus shows that itwas dedicated by the demos of Athens, not by Augustus himself. This isas one would expect since, although permission to set up imperialcults had to be obtained from the emperor,61 the initiative would havebeen an Athenian one. The building of the temple would also have56 The passage is discussed by Hoff (1989a) 4; Alcock (1993) 214.57 Sherk (1988) no.24, with references; Hoff (1989b) 275-6.58 Hoff (1989a), Mellor (1975) 139, opting for 27-18 BC.59 Mellor (1975) 106, 140; Maass (1972) n6;cf. p. 121 on an Augustan inscription referring to

a priest of Demos, the Graces and Roma. 60 Shear (1981) 363. 61 Price (1984a)66.

124 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

been an Athenian initiative - most likely in the hope of benefactions -and there is no evidence that Augustus had any part in it other thanpresumably agreeing to it.

Zanker cites the temple of Roma and Augustus as an example ofthe fact, in his view, that 'the physical setting of the cult of theemperor was usually in the middle of the city, integrated into thecentre of religious, political, and economic life'.62 This is true only toan extent, since the Akropolis cannot be called the centre of politicalor economic life; the latter was increasingly focused round the Agorawhich had expanded during the Augustan period from the beginningsmade by Caesar,63 and the political life was still concentrated in theold, Greek, Agora (although admittedly the distinction between thetwo is to a large extent a false one in functional terms). I would,therefore, play down these aspects in Zanker's statement, which inturn emphasizes the religious aspect. How could it be otherwise, witha temple that not only enshrined the cult of Roma for the first time inAthens, but that gave the cult of Augustus himself'equal billing' withthat of Roma?

Two further aspects of the temple of Roma and Augustus linked itunmistakably with the Periklean buildings: first, the position of thetemple, just beyond the east end of the Parthenon, with which it wasaxially aligned, was of immense significance. It was by the east end ofthe Parthenon that all who wished to enter would do so; and thatmany Romans did enter is not only common sense presumption, butmay be deduced from the many imperial copies of the Parthenos.64 Atemple next to the east end, the main entrance, would not have failedto be noticed; the east end of the Parthenon itself was used for imperialadvertisement / aggrandizement in Nero's time (see below, pp. 153—4).The physical juxtaposition may well have been intended to imply anassociation between Athena and Roma. Secondly, the architecture ofthe temple was in deliberately conspicuous imitation of, even homageto, the Ionic order and exceptionally elaborate detail of theneighbouring Erechtheion, the cult centre of the Akropolis. A moreobvious example of archaism in the sense of association with the pastby imitation is hard to find.65

Thus the temple associated Augustus not only with Roma but withthe Parthenon and the Erechtheion, and it did so in the place where itwould be most obvious. It should not, then, have been possible to62 Zanker (1988) 298. 63 Hoff (1989a). 64 Leipen (1971).65 The Forum Augustum in Rome of c. 10-2 BC incorporated imitations of the Erechtheion

karyatids (e.g. Ward-Perkins (1981) 32 fig. 9).

Caesar and Augustus 125

overlook the temple of Roma and Augustus; but, almost as if toeradicate any doubt, it was circular. There are few circular buildingsin Greece, and a good proportion of those are of uncertain purpose, atleast to the modern scholar: the tholoi at Epidauros (2.27.3) a n d atDelphi being the most conspicuous.66 The tholos at Delphi may be thebuilding Pausanias saw in the Marmaria with 'images (eikones) ofRoman emperors' (10.8.6). The bibliography on the identity of thebuildings in the Marmaria mentioned (and omitted) by Pausanias isextensive, and the question is unresolved, as it is likely to remain.67 InAthens, the tholos in the Agora, dating from c.460 BG, was the closestexample, but the temple of Vesta in Rome is more likely to have beenthe immediate inspiration.68 There may have been a further prototypein Augustus' mind: the circular Philippeion at Olympia, which wasused by Philip and Alexander for their own self-aggrandizement.69

The appropriation of the image of Zeus was noted above as stemmingoriginally from the Macedonians, and it is by no means impossiblethat it was in emulation of them that the cult of Augustus as ruler washoused in a circular building in one of the most ancient Greeksanctuaries.

Michael Hoffhas wondered whether it is to the same period as thetemple of Roma and Augustus that the plan by several unnamedkings to complete the temple of Olympian Zeus and dedicate it to theGenius of Augustus can be assigned (Suet. Aug. 60).70 There is no hintof Augustus' view of the project, nor even that he knew of it; but, hadit been completed, it might have served well his promotion of aparallel between himself and Zeus.

Vitruvius is our main source for the history of the temple ofOlympian Zeus (3.2.8; 7 praef. 15, 17): it had been started in thesecond half of the sixth century by Peisistratos or his sons but wasabandoned soon after, because of its tyrannical associations accordingto Vitruvius, but its presumably considerable expense may have beena factor. In the second quarter of the second century BG, Antiochos IV

66 Seiler (1986). The tholos at Epidauros is called thymele in an inscription from the theatre(Burford (1969) 63 n.2, 66-8); Lawrence suggests that the word was 'presumably obsoletebefore Pausanias's visit' (Lawrence (1983) 390 n.4).

67 E.g. Lerat (1985); Bookidis (1983); LeRoy (1977).68 The derivation from the temple of Vesta was suggested by Graindor (1927) 181, on the

grounds of shape and Ionic order, and his belief that the temple of Roma and Augustus alsohoused the cult of Hestia. The lack in the Athens temple of the inner circular wall of theRome temple suggests that the inspiration is of a general kind more concerned with theexterior than the interior.

69 The Philippeion had previously been imitated by Ptolemy II for purposes of ruler-worship inthe Heroon at Limyra (most recently, Stanzl (1993)). 70 Hoff (1989a) 6 n.34.

126 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

Epiphanes (175-163 BG) had introduced the first recorded Romanarchitect in Greece, Cossutius, and had advanced the project, fittingit with Corinthian columns (its original order is not clear, but wasmost likely Doric). Antiochos also dedicated in Athens and Olympia(5.12.4). Among his other depredations in Athens, Sulla had removedsome columns of the temple of Olympian Zeus in order to help rebuildburnt temples on the Capitol at Rome (see above, p. 100). Thedamaging of the temple by Sulla, known to Augustus presumably notleast because of the adornment of Rome by columns taken by Sullafrom the temple, was at odds with Augustus' policy of restoration: asnoted, there is epigraphical evidence for his restoring eighty ruinedtemples throughout Attica.

Pausanias on Augustus 1: art and buildings

In view of all the preceding evidence of his prominence, we wouldexpect Augustus to have a high profile in Pausanias' work, and indeedhe is mentioned more frequently than any emperor other than Hadrian.

The first mention of Augustus in Pausanias' narrative is at firstsight perhaps the oddest: in his tour of Corinth, he says 'Augustus wasemperor of Rome after Caesar, the founder of the present city ofCorinth' (2.3.1). The passage has already been discussed for what itsuggests about how Augustus might have been perceived in theRoman East around 150 years after his death (see above, p. 4). If it istaken as reflecting those perceptions rather than Pausanias' ownopinions, we need to look elsewhere for the latter.

The next reference to Augustus, also discussed in the first chapter,provides some evidence of Pausanias' opinions, but may also reflectearly imperial views of honorific statues. To quote the passage again,at the Argive Heraion, Pausanias says that 'before the entrancestand statues of women who have been priestesses of Hera, andstatues of heroes, including Orestes; for they say that the statuewhich the inscription declares to be the emperor Augustus is reallyOrestes' (2.17.3). The re-use of a statue for another figure is readilyparalleled, for example in the Prytaneion in Athens, 'the names onthe statues of Miltiades and Themistokles have been altered intothose of a Roman and a Thracian' (1.18.3).71 That the practice of71 On the re-labelling of statues by Mummius and later Romans (not least because of the

practice of shipping statues without their bases and, therefore, without their identification),Strong (1973) 255-6. Interestingly, at Corinth the practice of re-using statue bases afterremoving their dedicatory inscriptions ceased between Augustus and the fourth century AD(Kent (1966) 22).

Caesar and Augustus 12 7

re-attributing honorific statues was widespread is apparent from DioChrysostom's criticism of the Rhodians for saving money by erasingand re-cutting the inscriptions on statues (Or. 31.9). Although this isconsidered inappropriate by Dio, in other instances it may evokeheroic images: this seems to be the point behind Claudius' doctoringof paintings by Alexander's court painter Apelles, one of Kastor andPollux with Alexander, and the other of personifications of Victoryand of War, the latter with his hands tied behind his back, riding intriumph on a chariot along with Alexander. According to Pliny,'both these pictures the deified Augustus dedicated with modestrestraint in the most frequently visited parts of his forum. The deifiedClaudius, however, thought it better to cut out the face of Alexanderfrom both pictures and to add portraits of Augustus' [NH 35.94, tr.Pollitt).

But what is striking about the Orestes/Augustus statue is thatPausanias has taken a stance on the truth of the identity of the subject,obviously a source of local discussion despite the inscription. Ratherthan simply report the controversy, Pausanias (as he consistently,although not invariably, does) makes up his own mind as to theidentity of the statue, and here plumps for Orestes, thus implying thatthe inscription is inaccurate, perhaps deliberately intended to deceive.If so, it deceived neither the locals nor Pausanias. It may simply bethat they felt confident in identifying the statue as that of a herorather than of an emperor, but it may also be that there is implicit aless than reverential attitude for Augustus' supposed image and evenfor the emperor himself. In any event, it says much for Pausanias'priorities that his art-historical judgement takes precedence over anyawkwardness he may have felt here, particularly in the case of anemperor of whom he has a generally favourable view.72

A statue of Augustus, made of amber, is mentioned by Pausanias inhis description of Olympia (5.12.7); it was suggested (see above,pp. 52—3) that what Pausanias calls a 'rare and valuable' materialwas especially fitting for a statue of an emperor, and perhapsAugustus in particular.

Pausanias mentions an example of Augustus' removing antiquitiesfrom Greece, and his treatment of the example is perhaps moreindicative of his attitude towards Augustus than it is of Augustus'

72 Cecioni (1993), building on Dewar (1988) and (1990), uses this passage to support anapparent link in Vergil between Orestes and Augustus. There is no suggestion that Pausaniassaw such a link in the statue. He calls it a statue of Orestes because that is what the locals callit, and says nothing of the inscription being re-cut.

128 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

attitude towards antiquities. The passage, concerning Tegea inArkadia, is worth quoting at length: 'the ancient image of AthenaAlea, and with it the tusks of the Kalydonian boar, were carried off bythe Roman emperor Augustus, after he had defeated Antony and hisallies, among whom were all the Arkadians except the Mantineans. Itis known that Augustus was not the first to carry off votive offeringsand images of the gods from his vanquished foes, but that he onlyfollowed a long-established precedent. For when Ilion was taken andthe Greeks were dividing the spoils, the wooden image of Zeus of theCourtyard was given to Sthenelos, son of Kapaneus. And many yearsafterwards, when the Dorians were migrating into Sicily, Antiphemos,the founder of Gela, sacked Omphake, a town of the Sikanians, andcarried off to Gela an image which had been made by Daidalos. Andwe know that Xerxes, son of Darius, king of Persia, besides what hecarried off from the city of Athens, took from Brauron an image ofBrauronian Artemis; and moreover, accusing the Milesians of wilfullyplaying the coward in the sea-fights with the Athenians in Greekwaters, he took the bronze Apollo of Branchidai. The latter image wasafterwards restored to the Milesians by Seleukos. But down to mytime the Argives still preserve the images they took from Tiryns: oneof them, a wooden image, stands beside the image of Hera, the other ispreserved in the sanctuary of Elean Apollo. When the people ofKyzikos compelled the people of Prokonnesos by force of arms tosettle in Kyzikos, they took from Prokonnesos an image of MotherDindymene: the image is of gold, and the face is made of the teeth ofhippopotamuses instead of ivory. Thus the emperor Augustus merelypractised an ancient custom, which is observed by Greeks andbarbarians alike' (8.46.1-4).

The above passage has been quoted in extenso because it is atunusual length that Pausanias makes a single point, in defence ofAugustus' following what was standard practice.73 It is intriguingthat Pausanias felt it necessary to offer an explanation at all whenAugustus was continuing an established practice, while it is usuallydepartures from established practice that prompt explanations.

73 He might equally have added the removal by Marcellus of so much Greek art from Syracusein 211 BC, marked out by Livy as the beginning of the fashion (25.40.2; see above, p. 80).Alcock (1994) 100 calls the removal of statues the 'continuation of a very long-lived trend',but does not mention this passage, nor Pausanias' awareness of this fact. For other instancesof Augustus removing artefacts from the provinces, Pliny NH 35.131, 36.28.

Caesar and Augustus 129

While Pausanias does not explicitly give his approval to the practiceof carrying off artefacts, he hardly condemns it, and his detailing ofexamples — spanning Greeks, Dorians and Persians — goes back as faras the Trojan war, and effectively uses the past to legitimize the (inthis case, recent) present. And there is no further back to go than theTrojan war.

Thus the episode of removal, which one would expect Pausanias torelate with disdain or disapproval, in fact leads to a defensive andunusually extensive tacit justification - one might call it a damagelimitation exercise - and betrays a frankly fawning attitude toAugustus. For Palm, Pausanias' attitude here is to Augustus quaemperor; the emperor could be identified with Rome, and 'Loyalitatgegen den Kaiser war Loyalitat gegen Rom'.74 But this is not simply amatter of deference to emperors per se: Pausanias' reference to Nero'scarrying off 500 statues from Delphi is in a very different tone (10.7.1;see below, p. 147). Just as the tone of that passage is, as will becomeevident, indicative of Pausanias' attitude to Nero personally, so thedeferential tone of this passage is indicative of his attitude to Augustuspersonally. It seems at odds with the less than flattering attitude toAugustus revealed by the episode of the re-named statue of Orestes;however, that example is not treated at anything like the same length,and its negative impact is less than is the positive impact of the secondexample.

As to the buildings of the Augustan period in Greece, Pausaniasmentions no certain example, although the temple of Octavia atCorinth may qualify (2.3.1; see above, p. 108). The only othercandidate is a temple of Augustus himself in the agora at Sparta(3.11.4); beside it Pausanias saw a temple to Caesar, adding two moreto the count of Roman buildings he mentions. In keeping with whatwe know of the procedure for building temples to the emperor, there isno suggestion that Augustus was personally involved in the buildingof these temples, although the occasion of the dedication could havebeen his visit and reception there.

In writing his account of Athens, Pausanias would have seenseveral Augustan, or partly Augustan, buildings, and he is character-istically selective in his treatment of them. To his omission of theAgora of Caesar and Augustus and the temple of Roma and Augustus

74 Palm (1959) 67.

130 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

may be added the manner in which he notes the mid-fifth-centurytemple of Ares (1.8.4), tne most notable example of the phenomenonof 'itinerant temples',75 which was removed from an uncertainlocation (probably Acharnai in Attica) and re-built in the unmissablelocation of the centre of the Athenian Agora in the time of Augustus.There is evidence to suggest that it may have been re-dedicated toGaius Caesar and Drusus Caesar (see above, p. 121). Such re-dedication, the Romanization of a Classical temple, was by no meansunknown to Pausanias - he cites, for example, the Metroon atOlympia (see above, p. 120) - but he omits this aspect of the Arestemple, confining himself to detailing Greek statues in and around it.

This selectivity may be attributable to his preference for mattersGreek, or to the familiarity of temples to the imperial cult.Contemporaneity and familiarity are necessarily closely related.Also, there are many occasions when he does not comment on thestructure of a temple as opposed to its sculptural decoration or cultstatue. The familiarity of the imperial cult is a possible explanationalso for his omission of the temple of Roma and Augustus on theAkropolis.

Pausanias does, however, mention the Odeion of Agrippa of c.15BG, which also had a central place in the Athenian Agora, but he doesso only very briefly, expressly picking out just one object and using thebuilding merely as a topographical point of reference for that object:'on entering the Music Hall at Athens we observe, among otherthings, an image of Dionysos which is worth seeing' (1.14.1). Thereare limited parallels for the form of the Odeion, which may havedeterred Pausanias, but they were not in Greece, and it may be thathe felt the Odeion was, in Ward-Perkins' phrase, 'an intruder toAthens'.76 As he also points out, while there are Greek elements(including the archaizing use of fifth-century models), the position ofthe Odeion was thoroughly Roman in its relationship to the otherbuildings in the Agora, and that would, naturally, be its mostimmediately striking feature to any visitor.77 It must also be notedthat Pausanias generally spends little time on architectural detail,particularly in his account of Athens.

Elsewhere in Greece, Pausanias says of the theatre at Sparta that itis 'built of white marble, and is worth seeing' (3.14.1). However, itwas 'essentially a creation of the Augustan age, when the site was75 Thompson (1962); Alcock (1993) 191-6.76 Ward-Perkins (1981) 268; also, Dinsmoor (1950) 319. 77 Ward-Perkins (1981) 267, 25.

Caesar and Augustus 131

completely remodelled'.78 Whether this would have been apparent toPausanias or not is unclear; inscriptions may have made it clear, butthe architectural style was of a traditional Hellenistic kind. Wecannot know whether Pausanias would have mentioned the theatre -never mind praised it - if he had thought it largely a Roman building,although he did mention the analogous case of the stadium at Delphi,made of 'the common stone of Parnassus' until, according toPausanias, rebuilt by Herodes Atticus in marble (10.32.1, see below,P- 197)-

Pausanias on Augustus 2: politics and administration

The majority of Pausanias' references to Augustus are not concernedwith artefacts, sanctuaries or sites, but with politics and government.It was noted above that Pausanias sees Caesar as responsible forinstituting the political system which persisted to his own day (2.1.2,3.11.4). The latter passage is worth quoting more fully: 'In themarket-place [at Sparta] there is a temple to Caesar, the first Romanwho aspired to the throne, and the founder of the present system ofgovernment. There is also in the market-place a temple to Caesar'sson Augustus, who placed the empire on a firmer basis, and attained aheight of dignity and power which his father never reached.'

Thus not only is the link between son and father (Pausanias uses thewords paidi and pater) made explicit, but it parallels the link betweenthe system instituted by Caesar, and its 'son', the system as refinedand improved by Augustus. The word here translated by Frazer as'throne' is 'monarchia ('monarchy', Jones); similarly, the word basileiais translated here (following Jones) as 'empire' rather than 'monarchy'as Frazer. The use of the word basileus by Pausanias and hiscontemporaries has been discussed (see above, pp. 114-16), and it isclear that it means 'emperor', and that basileia means 'empire'. Atranslation of basileus as 'king' would be misleading and in the sameway, I suggest, Frazer's 'monarchy' is a misleading rendering of basileia.

This still leaves the question of what exactly is meant by 'emperor'and 'empire'. While the word monarchia is clearly open to a translationas 'monarchy', not least because of contemporary views of Caesar as

78 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 128. This may have been due to Eurykles. Pausanias(3.11.3) says that the Persian stoa at Sparta had been rebuilt in a more magnificent form; hegives no date, but may refer to a Hadrianic reconstruction of a building of CAD 125-50(Waywell and Wilkes (1994) 413-14, 432).

132 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

seeking after monarchy in the sense of kingship, I believe thatPausanias had something different, and more literal, in mind here,which I would suggest is best translated, following LSJ, in a moreliteral manner as 'government by a single ruler'.79 The adoption ofthis translation of monarchia arises from the fact, as it appears to me,that it is by no means clear that the implications of the passage are ofintended kingship rather than of the rule of the individual (albeitabsolute rule, but that is setting the pattern for the empire proper).Further, it stresses the central fact Pausanias is making, namely thatthere is continuity in the political system instituted by Caesar andcontinued by Augustus and, by implication, by subsequentemperors.

Sparta, Lakonia and Messenia

The passage in Pausanias from which the preceding discussion hasarisen is written in the context of Sparta, and it is in connection withSparta, Lakonia more generally, and Messenia that Pausaniasmakes many of his references to politics and administration underAugustus (3.21.6, 3.26.7, 4.1.1, 4.30.2). In fact, the book on Messeniais almost entirely historical — how accurately so is not an issue forpresent purposes. Strabo (8.6.18) shows that Sparta was in his daythe city most highly regarded by the Romans, and as a contemporaryof Augustus', he must have had the emperor's personal interest inthe city in mind. The cause of Augustus' favour was Sparta'sposition as one of only two cities (the other being Man tinea) to havesupported him at Actium. Pausanias says that before Actium, theSpartans 'sided with Augustus', attributing this to the Arkadians'siding with Antony (8.8.12), with the exception of the Mantineans(cf. 8.9.6). The displeasure of Augustus with 'those who sidedagainst him' (4.31.2) parallels Sulla's vehemence against an Athenswhich had defied him (see above, pp. 100-2). Strabo's comment isgiven much weight by the exceptional gift of personal dunasteia overthe Spartans bestowed by Augustus to the prominent local figureEurykles, whose Hadrianic descendant is probably referred to byPausanias (p. 193).80

The games instituted by Augustus in honour of Actium at79 Similarly, Millar (1964) 74, says that 'monarchy in Dio means the established rule of a single

man'.80 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 98-101; for Eurykles and the imperial cult, 127-8.

Caesar and Augustus 133

Nikopolis (see above, p. 108) were administered by the Spartans,81

and in Sparta itself, the Caesarean games were probably an Augustanfoundation.82 Here, as in the case of Corinth, the Roman presence ismade manifest by, among other features, games, continuing along-established Greek tradition but in the modern, Roman, manner,and it is not surprising that three further games were established inthe first and second centuries; these, as Spawforth observes, 'point to asustained effort by the Spartans to establish their city as a rival to thetraditional agonistic centres of old Greece'.83 Along with games gofestivals; in the case of Sparta (as surely elsewhere), the festival'incorporated civic sacrifices on the emperor's behalf as well as games,providing the new cult with its ceremonial focus'.84

The institution of games and festivals was not the only manifestationof the phenomenon of the 're-invention' of Sparta. Spawforth saysthat 'a local literary tradition had taken firm root at Sparta by theAugustan period'.85 There is a considerable importance in thisphenomenon, as there is in the increasing sophistication of Spartaneducation, which mirrored Greek education in general, including itsemphasis on rhetoric. Its ultimate product is the series of writers of thefirst three centuries AD on whom we depend for much of ourinformation about Roman Greece.

Along with Sparta itself, there was imperial interest in theLakedaimonian cities, including the Free Lakonians, established byAugustus c.5 BC. In the preliminaries to his description of Gytheion,Pausanias says that it 'now belongs to the Free Lakonians, whom theemperor Augustus released from the relation of serfdom in which theyhad stood to the Lakedaimonians of Sparta' (3.21.6). Spawforthobserves that 'although the accuracy of this passage has beendoubted, it is confirmed by inscriptions from Gytheum, whichportray Augustus and Tiberius as the restorers of the city's "ancientfreedom" and posthumously hail the former as "Eleutherius"'.86

81 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 99, adding that Sparta 'went on to develop close ties' withNikopolis.

82 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 184; 'almost certainly' - they are first mentioned in aFlavian inscription. 83 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 185.

84 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 184-5.85 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 177, tracing the Republican origins of this movement.86 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 100; on the administrative background, p. 149. The title

'Eleutherius' is discussed with reference to Hadrian below, p. 163. An inscription fromGytheion of c. AD 15 detailing a festival of the imperial cult refers, inter alia, to painted imagesof the god Augustus, and Iulia Augusta [i.e. Livia], and Tiberius Caesar Augustus (SEG xi923, Sherk (1988) no.32; Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 101, 252 n.15; Price (1984a) 109).

134 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

Like Sparta itself, the provincial towns also had imperial buildings,such as Asopos, where Pausanias saw a 'temple of the Romanemperors' (3.22.9), an interesting use of the plural which may implythat there was a cult of the emperors rather than just individual cultsof each emperor, although the Metroon at Olympia provides anexample of a building which contained statues of several emperors(see above, p. 120 and below, p. 157).

Patrai and Nikopolis

While I have argued for the primacy of Corinth's role in the creationof Roman Greece, and for Pausanias' holding this view, I alsomentioned that Patrai was another candidate. As Corinth was aJulian re-foundation, so Patrai was an Augustan one, possibly of 16BC, but in all probability of 14 BG.87 Chronologically, therefore,Corinth's role is the primary one. The picture Pausanias gives in bookseven is of Augustus creating - or, more accurately, and importantlyfor present purposes, re-creating — Patrai as a Roman colony (7.18.5);it is as a colony that Pliny (JVi/4.11) and Strabo (8.7.5) describePatrai, and epigraphical and numismatic evidence supports this.88

The new colony was formed by synoikism, with the effectiveannexation by Augustus of Dyme (7.17.5), itself a veteran colonysince 44 BG (Strabo 8.7.5);89 Rhypes, after sacking it (7.18.7); Pharai(7.22.1) and Triteia (7.22.6). To these may be added Olenos, situatedbetween Patrai and Dyme, and in Strabo's day abandoned ('itsterritory is held by the people of Dyme', 8.7.5; c^ 10.2.22).

The background to the re-foundation of Patrai is, then, one ofdestruction, as it was at Corinth, but in this case not of a singledestruction, and not of a destruction of which the restorer, Augustus,was innocent as was Caesar, the restorer of Corinth. Thus thedestruction of Dyme by Sulpicius, mentioned by Pausanias (7.17.5),had occurred at the end of the third century BG (cf. Appian, Maced. 7;Livy 32.22.10), and Plutarch tells of its re-settlement with Cilicianpirates by Pompey, and claims that it was 'bereft of men and hadmuch good land' (Pompey 28.4).90 Similarly, Pausanias says thatRhypes had been destroyed, in this case by Augustus himself; Strabo,writing, as he tells us, soon after 'the Romans, after their victory at

87 Kahrstedt (1950) 549. 88 Rizakis (1989) esp. 183.89 M. Lakakis and A.D. Rizakis in Rizakis (1992) 100.90 On the reliability of this latter claim, Alcock (1993) 132.

Caesar and Augustus 135

Actium, settled a considerable part of the army at Patrai', says thatRhypes was in his day uninhabited (8.7.5). Again, Pausanias saysthat Triteia was assigned to Patrai by Augustus (7.22.6).91

The reason for Augustus' re-foundation of Patrai is not clear toPausanias, who says it was 'either because he thought Patrai was aconvenient place for vessels to touch at in passing, or for some otherreason' (7.18.7).92 His suggestion is common sense in view of Patrai'sideal position for commerce as a western port. The effects of there-foundation are, however, all too clear to Pausanias: he notes thatthe synoikism resulted in the depopulation of the area round Patrai inorder to populate Patrai itself, and he notes the conferring of freedomon the Patraians alone of the Achaeans. The latter should beremembered when other declarations of freedom are discussed, suchas the earlier one of Flamininus and the later one of Nero, or Sulla'sgift of freedom to various Greek cities, and Augustus' refusal of it toSamos (see above, p. 118 n.35). The phrase 'he further invested themwith all the other privileges which are commonly accorded to aRoman colony' (7.18.7) leaves no doubt about the status of Patrai forPausanias. Further, he lists Myonia, Oiantheia and Naupaktos astowns 'governed by the Achaeans of Patrai, who received theprivilege from the emperor Augustus' (10.38.9).

The resemblance of Patrai to Corinth lies not only in its status as acolony, but also in the movement of population, something on whichPausanias remarks with feeling in connection with Corinth (seeabove, p. 94-5), but neutrally reports here. Although the populationbrought into Patrai was not foreign in the sense that the populationbrought into the newly re-founded Corinth was, it was nonetheless animported population. Indeed, it may not be unfair to say that theimported population of Patrai bears closest resemblance to the oldpopulation of Corinth in that both are displaced Greeks, and in bothinstances the beneficiaries are the Romans. As Rizakis points out,Strabo's use of the phrase oi ev FFdTpais 'Pco|iafoi (10.2.21) implies adifferent status from FfaTpefs, making 'a clear distinction between thetwo ethnic groups living in the same town: those of the colonists,Roman citizens, and those of the Patraian Greeks'.93 He adds that

Kahrstedt (1950), rejecting (554) an Augustan date for absorption of Dyme. Alcock (1993)133-45 on Patrai, Dyme, Nikopolis and the 'manipulations of population and territorialboundaries' (133).The importance of Patrai as a port is stressed by Rizakis (1989) 180, who notes that itincreased after the sack of Corinth in 146. 93 Rizakis (1989) 183.

136 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

'this distinction disappears in later documents' and notes the uncertaintyover the ethnic and political character of Patrai in the second century AD.

Pausanias' account shows that as at Corinth, where the effectiveexport of Greek objects and the cessation of some long-established cultpractices matched the import of Roman settlers, so at Patrai theimport of a new population was accompanied by the removal of theparaphernalia and symbols of established Greekness: thus the 'images'(agalmatd) at Pharai were removed to Rome (7.22.5), and the 'ancientimage' [agalma... archaion) of Athena at Triteia likewise (7.22.9). But,appropriately, the most telling phrase used in this connection is ofPatrai itself, where Pausanias says that the image of Artemis Laphriain the sanctuary on the Akropolis had been brought from Aitoliawhich had, just like Achaea, been deprived of people and objects byAugustus (Pausanias also refers to the depopulation of Aitolia,specifically for the creation of Nikopolis, at 10.38.4).

There is a further element here, not mentioned by Pausanias, whowas perhaps unaware of it: epigraphical evidence links the cult ofAugustus with that of Artemis Laphria.94 Strabo (10.2.21) mentions atemple of Apollo Laphrios near Kalydon, itself near the lake which,Strabo tells us in the same passage, was held by the Romans who livein Patrai. It would be interesting to know of any suggestion that thecult itself had been imported, or whether the Artemis Laphria statuewas brought because of an existing connection with Patrai and thearea, which would make more sense.

Arising from these incidents of the transfer of statues, Susan Alcocksays that 'removing a patron god or goddess demonstrates theabsolute power of the conqueror, at the same time enacting acommunity's symbolic destruction. Transferral of cult images alsoserved to undercut former territorial loyalties and to foster new ties.'95

She makes the further suggestion that the 'transfer of cult statuescould also be viewed as a sharing of them'.96 These two statements donot seem entirely compatible, and the latter carries certain, perhapsinaccurate, connotations, since it is hard to see how deprivation of thephysical and symbolic centre of the community can constitute sharingwith any implication of even approximately equal access: sharingimplies leaving part, if not an equal part, but the consequences ofenacting such symbolic destruction remain a relationship based upondomination and subordination.

94 Rizakis (1989) 184; Papapostolou (1986). 95 Alcock (1993) 140-1.96 Alcock (1994) 101.

Caesar and Augustus 137

Alcock goes on to add as an example Sulla's removal fromAlalkomenai of the statue of Athena (9.33.6; see above, p. 102),saying that 'retribution followed'. Here again, if one is looking at adivine response (not unreasonable in the context, especially in view ofthe mystic element in the references to Sulla), 'retribution' is an oddresponse to 'sharing', which is a form of spreading and broadcastingdivinity, not constraining it.

The foundation of Nikopolis in celebration of the victory at Actiumwas facilitated by moving populations from the surrounding areamuch as it was in Patrai, both at the instigation of Augustus (e.g.5.23.3). Cassius Dio says that after Actium, Augustus 'founded a cityon the site of his camp by gathering together some of the neighbouringpeoples and by transplanting others, and he named it Nikopolis'(51.1.3). As at Patrai, games were instituted at the foundation of thecolony.97

In the case of Nikopolis also the centring of political rights on thenew foundation is strikingly remarked on by Pausanias, and associatedwith Augustus personally: 'it was the will of the emperor Augustusthat Nikopolis . . . should join the Amphictyonic League, that theMagnesians, Malians, Ainianians, and Phthiotians should be includedamong the Thessalians, and that their votes, together with those ofthe Dolopians (who had ceased to exist as a people), should beexercised by the Nikopolitans' (10.8.3, presumably meaning that theDolopians ceased to exist as a result of the foundation of Nikopolis).The context of these remarks is a history of the Amphictyonic League,which makes clear the central role of Augustus in its re-organization.Pausanias goes on to mention the structure of the League in his ownday, but does not say who was responsible for changes since Augustus.Thus the account is centred on Augustus, which is historicallyjustifiable, since his considerable re-structuring of the League isamply attested by epigraphical evidence.98

As Pausanias tells of the effect of the foundation of Nikopolis on thelocal populations, so too he pays attention to the objects: 'most of theimages from Aitolia and Akarnania were taken to Nikopolis by orderof Augustus' (7.18.9). This puts in perspective Augustus' restorationof an 'ancient temple of Apollo' at Nikopolis (Suet. Aug. 18.2) which,as noted (see above, p. 121 with n.44) was part of his self-promotion asa New Apollo; altruistic concern for the temple per se is not likely to

97 Rizakis (1989) 185. On the games at Nikopolis, see pp. 108, 132-3 above.98 Daux (1975) discusses this passage in detail.

138 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 2

have occurred to him. The phrase he uses at RG 20.1, 'I restored theCapitol and the theatre of Pompey, both works at great expensewithout inscribing my own name on either' is a good indication of thestandard approach of the period to such patronage."

While there are similarities in the history of Corinth and Patrai asdescribed by Pausanias, the element of the personal involvement ofAugustus distinguishes the account of Patrai since, as noted, thedamage and depopulation of Corinth had occurred a century beforeCaesar. The accuracy of Pausanias' history here has been doubted fora long time — Frazer cites Mommsen, for example, as disagreeing withthe statement that Dyme was annexed to Patrai100 — but here, aselsewhere, the accuracy of Pausanias' account is not an issue forpresent purposes, unless it is apparent that it is a deliberate inaccuracyor distortion. I stressed in the first chapter that autopsy is, in my view,the single most distinctive feature in Pausanias' work, and thattherefore his writings on history should not be seen in the same light asthose on the objects, temples and cult practices he observed personally.I have also suggested that some historical content is inevitable, and inthe present context, to take a minor but representative example, it isnot, in his view, adequate to say simply that Triteia and Pharai nolonger have images, if he believes he knows an explanation of whythey do not. If modern historical research reveals that he is wrong inthat explanation, we may hold his informants responsible, or perhapshis lack of informants; but we should be hesitant to read opinion,rather than ignorance, into this.

Shear notes that the political life of Athens was reduced after thedeath of Augustus, reviving again with Hadrian, and that it receivedless physical embellishment and fewer imperial benefactions in theinterim.101 Indeed, one might extend this observation to the provinceof Achaia in general, and link it with the prevailing economicconditions of the time.102 Since Achaia was not again conspicuouslyfavoured by the Romans until the accession of Hadrian, we shouldnot expect much from any writer concerning that period. If it is truethat Pausanias is in general uninterested in contemporaneity, weshould perhaps expect that he might well not have written about iteven if it had been otherwise.

99 On the beginnings of the practice of inscribing the benefactor's name on a public building,Hornblower (1982) 280-93. 10° Frazer iv. 136.

101 Shear (1981) 365, 372; on Athens from Tiberius to Trajan, Graindor (1927).102 Day (1942) 177—9, o n the diminution in the prosperity of Greece, including Athens,

between the time of Tiberius and Trajan.

CHAPTER 5

Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j :Nero to Marcus Aurelius

Apart from Augustus, the only Julio-Claudian emperor to whomPausanias pays significant attention is Nero, the starting point for thischapter. Pausanias' few references to the remaining Julio-Claudianemperors were considered in the first part of chapter 3, along with thereasons behind his omitting some emperors altogether (namelyGalba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian, Nerva and Titus). The fact thatthe greater part of this chapter is devoted to Hadrian accuratelyreflects the distribution of Pausanias' writings on the emperors of thisperiod. I argued in chapter 1 for the importance of Hadrian inshaping the world in which Pausanias grew up, and the points madethere should be borne in mind here.

As well as Pausanias' view of Nero and Hadrian, his brief referencesto Vespasian, Trajan, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius are alsodiscussed in this chapter.

NERO

Nero may be regarded as the second most philhellene of the emperorswhose reigns are covered in this study, after Hadrian. Like Claudius,he was a speaker of Greek. The most celebrated aspect of hisphilhellenism was his visit to Greece in AD 66/7, particularly hisdeclaration of freedom for Achaia at the Isthmian games.1

More than in the case of other emperors extensively treated byPausanias (and he has more to say on Nero than on any bar Augustusand Hadrian), Nero's character forms a constant theme. The generalattitude of the sources towards Nero is hostile, and Pausanias'

1 On Nero in Greece, e.g. Kennell (1988); Bradley (1978b, 1979); Griffin (1984) 208-20;Morford (1985) 2024-6; Rudich (1993) 186-90; Alcock (1994).

139

140 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

account will be compared with those sources.2 Josephus documentsthe range of histories of Nero: 'many historians have written the storyof Nero, of whom some, because they were well treated by him, haveout of gratitude been careless of truth, while others from hatred andenmity towards him have so shamelessly and recklessly revelled infalsehoods as to merit censure' (AJ 20.154).3 While this must to someextent have been true of all emperors, Nero does appear to haveprovoked unusually personal reactions. To this, Pausanias was noexception.

Nero's declaration of the freedom of Greece

At 7.17.1, Pausanias talks of the Mummian invasion as 'the periodwhen Greece sank to the lowest depth of weakness'. He then details itswoes from the Dorian invasion to the fifth-century plague best knownfrom Thucydides' description, on to the rise of Macedonia, andcontinuing to Nero's declaration of the freedom of Greece at theIsthmian games. Its date has been much discussed, AD 66 nowgaining widespread acceptance rather than 67 as was until recentlygenerally believed; Pausanias' account is of disputed value for thisdebate.4

Notwithstanding difficulties over the date, Pausanias' account is ofinterest for several reasons, and therefore worth quoting in full:

when the Roman empire devolved on Nero, he gave the Roman people therich and fruitful island of Sardinia, and, taking Greece in exchange, he set itfree. Musing on this deed of Nero, I was struck by the truth of Plato's saying,that crimes of extraordinary magnitude and audacity proceed not fromcommon men, but from a noble nature depraved by a vicious upbringing.But the Greeks could not profit by the boon. For when Nero had beensucceeded on the throne by Vespasian, they fell out among themselves, andVespasian commanded that they should again pay tribute and submit to agovernor, the emperor remarking that Greece had forgotten what it was tobe free. (7-17-3-4)2 On the hostility of the sources towards Nero, Jones (1978) 14, (1971) 18-19.3 Pliny gives a thoroughly damning picture of Nero (NH 7.45-6, 22.92, 34.84,34.166, 35.51-2).4 The declaration is SIG 111.814. Levy (1991) concludes from literary, numismatic and

epigraphic evidence that it occurred soon after Nero's arrival in Greece in AD 66; he does notmention Pausanias' account. Numismatic evidence also led Amandry to 66 (Amandry (1988)19-24); Barnes (1989) 252-3 agrees, following Halfmann (1988). Interestingly, in dating it to67, Bradley (1978b) dismisses Pausanias' account; and Gallivan (1973) 232-4, supporting 67,admits that Pausanias' account suggests 66; Alcock (1993) 16, Sherk (1988) no. 71, and Lewisand Reinhold (1990b) 313-4, all date it to 67, with no discussion.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 141

The quid pro quo Pausanias mentions (and for which he is our onlysource) makes economic sense, and does not sound like whim.5 Thecomment Pausanias makes here about Nero's character reflects apreoccupation as we have seen; the characterization as 'a noblenature depraved by a vicious upbringing' is as near as Pausaniascomes to a compliment to Nero, seen here as a genuine benefactor forhis declaration of freedom for Achaia, or at least as extenuatingcircumstances for his excesses and impieties, so well chronicled byPausanias.6 Pausanias' account contains no hint of Nero's feelingabout the declaration of freedom, although the declaration itselfleaves no doubt that he felt he was giving Achaia a considerable andunique privilege. Further, it is clear that he felt this reflected uniquelywell on himself: for example, he says that 'other emperors have freedcities, Nero alone a whole province'.

Pausanias' omission of Nero's own view is in itself perhaps notsurprising, but it is an interesting contrast with Plutarch's saying thatFlamininus, who had similarly declared freedom for Greece, also atthe Isthmian games, in 196 BG, 'took most pride in his liberationof Greece' {Flam. 12.5). Plutarch goes on (12.8) to say thatwhile Flamininus had his declaration promulgated by herald (cf.Livy 33.32.4), Nero did so in person - hardly a controversialobservation.

Pausanias' reference to Nero's declaration of freedom as 'a boon'(doron; the text of the decree refers to the benefaction as a dorea, andtwice as a charts) appears to suggest a genuine enthusiasm for the ideain Pausanias, albeit combined with a sense of inevitability that it didnot succeed. The brief mention of Vespasian is colourless, in that itsuggests strongly that his hand was forced, and that the Greeks hadonly themselves to blame (further, see the section on Vespasian,below, pp. 155-6).

The wider passage conveys the notion of boundless decline, longestablished as a rhetorical device by Pausanias' day, but not alwayssimply rhetorical, dating as it does from the very beginnings of writtenClassical literature, as the fundamental backdrop to Hesiod's Worksand Days, and readily paralleled elsewhere. John Eisner has detected5 Alcock (1993) 16.6 Griffin (1984) 211, citing Plut. Mor. 567F-8 (noted by Bowie (1974) 208 n. 107), Philostr. VA

5.41 (see below, p. 156), but distancing Pausanias' account from those of the other twoauthors named, who 'celebrate his liberation of Greece with warm feelings'. Alcock cites thesame sources, seeing their view, and that of Pausanias, as 'signs of their appreciation' (Alcock(1994) 106-7). On Plutarch's attitude to Nero, Jones (1971) J8-19; Levin (1989) 1606-15.

142 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

in Pausanias ca sense of inevitable decline and fall',7 and this passagewould seem to bear this out. Indeed, Nero's own phrase, as recordedin the text of his declaration of freedom, 'would that I were makingthis gift while Hellas was still at its height', concurs with the notion atleast of constant, if not necessarily inevitable, decline. This wasquoted in chapter 1 (see above, p. 25) alongside Pliny's advice toMaximus to 'recollect each city's former greatness, but not so as todespise her for having lost it' (Ep. 8.24). But, as noted there, the factthat Pliny, like Nero, expressed these sentiments before Hadrian'spromotion of, and investment in, Greece renders them less applicableto the period of Pausanias' own lifetime, although it would beexaggerated to claim that Hadrian's activities altogether eliminatedperceptions of decline.

However, 7.17.1 does not support the notion of Pausanias' 'sense ofinevitable decline and fall', since his detailing of decline ends withMummius, and the subsequent malpractice of Nero is freestanding, of'a later age' and of his own personal making. For Nero, as theforegoing discussion indicates, Pausanias seems to have had especialdislike, but his misdeeds are not seen as naturally growing fromimperial rule; in contrast to Sulla, whose conduct he calls 'harsh andalien to the Roman character' (9.33.6) and 'unworthy of a Roman'(1.20.7), Pausanias does not ask us to judge Nero by reference to his'Romanitas'.

The idea of 'inevitable decline and fall' also fails to stand up toPausanias' treatment of the later empire, particularly, as will be seenlater in this chapter, the time of Hadrian, which appears to have beenthought of by him as precisely the opposite.

Oddly, Pausanias does not mention the location of Nero's declarationof freedom, nor even say that it occurred while Nero was in Greece.Nero's tour, which features so prominently in other sources, is notmentioned by Pausanias, and the reader almost has to search betweenthe lines to deduce that Nero ever visited Greece. The only straight-forward statement that he did so occurs in Pausanias' mention of theother engineering project (if it can be called that) undertaken by Neroin addition to the cutting of the Corinth canal (see below, pp. 151-2),namely his unsuccessful attempt to ascertain the depth of theAlkyonian Lake in the Argolid: 'Nero himself made the experiment,taking every precaution to ensure success. He had lines made many

7 Eisner (1992) 19.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 143

furlongs long: these he joined together and weighted with lead, but hecould find no bottom' (2.37.5). Otherwise, only Nero's dedications atOlympia and the Argive Heraion (see below, p. 148) seem tocommunicate to Pausanias' readers that Nero had ever visited Greece.

From a contemporary Roman perspective, the visit was importantsince, as Bradley points out, 'Nero's tour of Greece was the firstoccasion on which the emperor and his court had been out of Italysince Claudius' expedition to Britain . . . no emperor after Nero againleft Italy before Domitian went on campaign, almost twenty yearslater'.8 However, by Pausanias' time, the travels of Trajan andHadrian had been so extensive that the travels of an emperor per sewould have been unremarkable, and he may well have been unawareof the rarity of such travels in Nero's day. A parallel might be drawnwith modern-day Papal tours (themselves not dissimilar to imperialprogresses), now seemingly so constant that it is hard to conceive thatwhen Pope John XXIII left Rome in October 1962, he became thefirst Pope for more than a century to do so (and even then, it was onlyto travel within Italy).9

Nero's itinerary in Greece

Although Pausanias does not discuss Nero's itinerary in Greece, it isworth digressing briefly here to consider it, since it sheds importantlight on Nero's relations with Greece and on how other writers reporthis visit.

Strikingly, Nero did not visit Athens or Sparta. Cassius Dio(63.14.3) explains that Nero disapproved of the Lykourgan customs.10

Nero (like Pausanias after him; see above, p. 25) may have felt thatthese customs were recent creations, and that they therefore did notrepresent the authentic continuation of ancient traditions. Dioattributes Nero's exclusion of Athens to 'the story of the Erinyes'(63.14.3), avengers particularly of crimes against kindred, who wereprimarily associated with Athens. Since Nero was at the least undersuspicion of kin-murder, it seems credible that 'the story of theErinyes' would be heeded by someone in his position contemplating avisit to Athens.

Closely connected is Suetonius' statement that when in Greece,8 Bradley (1979) 157. 9 Walsh (1980) 225.

10 Spawforth calls Dio's explanation 'eccentric (but, admittedly, by no means incredible)',Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 103.

144 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j

Nero 'did not venture to take part in the Eleusinian Mysteries, sinceat the beginning the godless and wicked ('impii et scelerati') arewarned by the herald's proclamation to go hence' (Nero 34.4). Thisapparent reference to the ban on attendance by murderers may wellhave been - or, as importantly, have been thought to be - pertinent toNero, although, as Kevin Clinton observes, 'it is very doubtful that anemperor would have been turned away'.11 Perhaps Nero felt thatuncertainty over his eligibility for initiation would lead to too publican examination of his past. This public lack of association with theMysteries contrasts markedly with the initiation of many prominentfigures of the Republican era and, latterly, that of Augustus (seeabove, pp. 98, 122).12

Here Pausanias may be recalled. His own participation in theMysteries is probable, and he certainly regarded them in a veryspecial light (5.10.1; see above, pp. 68—9). It is perhaps likely thatPausanias would have been moved by indignation to comment ifNero had been initiated, but that in the absence of initiation, hepreferred to keep quiet - the covert reference to murder committed byNero (9.27.3—4) shows Pausanias' awareness of it, but it would becharacteristic of him to comment on what someone had done ratherthan on what they had not done.

Thus Nero's position as a suspected kin-murderer gave him tworeasons to avoid Athens, and we should not be surprised that he didso.13 However, Nigel Kennell has offered the further explanation thatNero was intent on becoming a periodonikes (as Dio relates, 63.8.3),and omitted Athens and Sparta because their games had no part intheperiodos, even in its extended early imperial form.14 These differingexplanations of Nero's itinerary need not be incompatible, sinceNero's intention to become a periodonikes would afford good cover foravoiding two cities which he could not visit without giving offence, orincurring divine displeasure, or publicly embarrassing himself.

Thus Nero's omission of Athens, and perhaps of Sparta also, may11 Clinton (1989b) 1514; this counters the suggestion of Mylonas that 'Nero avoided a visit to

Eleusis and a demand for initiation which might have been denied to him' (Mylonas (1962)155). That lesser people were sometimes turned away is clear from the experience ofApollonios (Philostr. VA 4.18).

12 Nero did, however, take part in one traditional religious practice by consulting the oracle atDelphi (Suet. Nero 40.3). Although Nero's involvement with Delphi had several aspects(below), for Pausanias, his only action there worth recording was to remove five hundredstatues (10.7.1).

13 As a secondary point, if the reason Dio gives for Nero's staying away from Athens is accurate,it is likelier that so also is his reason concerning Sparta. 14 Kennell (1988).

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 145

have stemmed in part from necessity as well as preference. In anycase, I do not see it as resulting from a calculated policy with broaderimplications than the personal, and for that reason I take issue withAlcock's argument that Nero's avoidance of Athens and Sparta'encouraged a new conception of Greece: not as a land of the past, butas part of the imperial present'.15 Nero's visits to Olympia and Delphido not seem compatible with this suggestion; indeed, one could arguethe opposite, that by not forcing himself on places where he waspalpably unwelcome - and, as remarked, it is unlikely that he wouldhave been refused at Eleusis had he chosen to press his case - Nero wasshowing a healthy degree of respect for long-established institutions, awise move for one who would be Greek.

Nero and the art of Greece

The theme of violation carried out by Nero is given emphasis bySuetonius' references to Nero melting down sacred images ('simulacra')when he needed money {Nero 32.4), reported also by Tacitus, whosays that Ttaly had been laid waste for contributions of money; theprovinces, the federate communities, and the so-called free states,were ruined. The gods themselves formed part of the plunder, as theravaged temples of the capital were drained of the gold dedicated . . .at every epoch. But in Asia and Achaia, not offerings alone but theimages of deity were being swept away, since Acratus and SecundusCarrinas had been despatched into the two provinces. The formerwas a freedman prepared for any enormity' {Ann. 15.45).

Secundus Carrinas is known from an inscription to have been madeeponymous archon by the Athenians, probably with the intention offending off further deprivations of their art.16 The freedman, Acratus,is mentioned again by Tacitus {Ann. 16.23), when he says that thepeople of Pergamon rioted in order to prevent him plundering thecity of statues and pictures. Here he may be presumed to have beenacting under orders from Nero; he certainly is in the account of DioChrysostom, who says in his oration to the Rhodians that Acratus'visited practically the whole inhabited world' for the purpose ofplundering, and 'passed by no village', but left Rhodes alone, as amark of Nero's especial affection for the island, which he regarded as'more sacred than the foremost sanctuaries' {Or. 31.148-9). Related

15 Alcock (1994) 105 (with no reference to Kennell's work).16 IG 112 4188. Day (1942) 179-80; Hoff (1994) 116; Geagan (1979) 384.

146 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

is Nero's attachment to Helios, for whose island of Rhodes he securedconcessions, including persuading Claudius, then emperor, to give itits freedom.17

The view of Nero so far built up is reinforced by subsequentreferences in Pausanias: in the continuation of the passage concerningthe statue of Eros from Thespiai (9.27.3, above, p. 84), the story of theEros ends with its destruction in the fire of Rome in Nero's day.Further, Pausanias here brackets Nero with Caligula as one of'themen who thus sinned against the god', and adds an illustration of thepersonal deficiency of each, in Nero's case, that 'besides his conduct tohis mother, [he] was guilty of accursed and unlovely crimes againsthis wives'. This arises out of a discussion of Nero's removal of a statue,one of many such incidents, apparently: Pliny (JVH 34.84) says thathe took many pieces of Greek sculpture and adorned the DomusAurea with them (contrast this with Mummius not adorning his home(see above, p. 91)). The statue was subsequently destroyed whileunder his 'care'.

The perverse behaviour of Nero towards his mother and wives isnot in itself of interest to Pausanias - it is referred to parentheticallybetween the two elements of the story of the Eros - otherwise wewould expect him to write in similar terms of Tiberius, for example,whose personal behaviour is the focus of Suetonius' account of his life,and is attested by other sources. Since, however, Pausanias has next tonothing to say on Tiberius and art, to discuss his character would bean unwarranted digression — this is a feature of Pausanias' workingmethod that is paralleled in, for example, his treatment of Caligula(see above, p. 85). Similarly, we would not expect Pausanias to dwellon Nero's maltreatment of the imperial family.

Olympia and Delphi

For Pausanias, it was Nero's attitudes to sanctuaries and art that wereof primary interest, and in those, recurrent themes present themselves.Pausanias' references to Nero carrying off statues are concentrated onthe two main Panhellenic sanctuaries, Olympia and Delphi, both ofwhich continued to flourish in the early empire; and this receivessupport from Dio Chrysostom [Or. 31.148-9). Pausanias refers toNero carrying off some five hundred bronze statues from Delphi, and

17 Jones (1978) 27-8; Griffin (1984) 210.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 147

to his removal of a number of statues from Olympia (comprising astatue of Odysseus, and dedications by Mikythos, an unstatednumber, but at least nineteen, since Pausanias enumerates seventeendedicated, and adds that Nero carried off others (plural) beside those(5.25.9, 5.26.3, 10.7.1, 10.19.2)).18

There are issues arising from this list: first, Nero is 'said to have'taken the statues from Olympia, a neutral report by Pausanias,reflecting the uncertainty over the fate of the statues exactly as heoften reflects uncertainty over the origins (and occasionally identifi-cation) of many statues elsewhere. There is nothing special to Nerohere, nor condemnatory of him. This latter point is important,showing as it does that Pausanias has no vested interest in attackingNero, since he rejects here a clear opportunity to attack him byconcurring with the reports of his thefts - instead, he merely reportsthem, preferring to condemn him only for those misdemeanours ofwhich he is personally convinced.

Pausanias' reference to the removal by Nero from Delphi of 'fivehundred bronze statues of gods and men together' (10.7.1) isfollowed by one to the removal of a statue of Skyllis' daughter, not aprivate dedication, but one from the Amphictyons (10.19.2). It isthe accompanying narrative that is of interest here: Pausanias saysthat Nero 'robbed Apollo' of the statues (10.7.1), an unusuallypejorative term. More strikingly, he prefaces this with an account of'innumerable plots' against Delphi over previous centuries, rangingfrom the very beginnings of the sanctuary under Apollo, andincluding Pyrrhos, son of Achilles, and culminating in Nero's action,the climax of centuries of impious violations of the sanctuary.19 Ithas been observed in this study that antiquity is seen as an importantfactor in conferring legitimacy; it follows that it can also be used, ashere, to confer disgrace of a corresponding depth.

In this, as in his treatment of Nero at Olympia, Pausanias'approach is factual, quietly condemnatory, never reaching the levelof outrage expressed by, for example, Dio Chrysostom in his Orationto the Rhodians: 'Nero had so great a craving and enthusiasm in thatbusiness [sc. plundering statues] that he did not keep his hands offeven the treasures of Olympia and Delphi, even though he honouredtheir temples most of all' (Or. 31.148; also, above). Some explanationof the apparent oxymoron in Dio's remark is required, beside the

18 On Mikythos and a pertinent base which has been discovered, Papahatzis 3.322 n. 1.19 On Delphi and Rome until Nero, Levin (1989) 1601-6.

148 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

rhetorical urge which may well have played its part: the deprivationsof the sanctuaries by Nero have been documented above, but besidethem should be set his dedications and benefactions.

Pausanias mentions only two occasions when Nero dedicated at aGreek sanctuary: at the Argive Heraion, where he dedicated a goldencrown and a purple robe (2.17.6), and at Olympia, where hededicated four crowns in the temple of Zeus (5.12.8; see below, p. 185on other imperial dedications there).20

The impression given by the fact of a mere two dedications is of aconsiderable imbalance between these and the scale of removal ofobjects from Greece. We know of other benefactions, which Pausaniasdoes not mention, such as the gift of HS 400,000 to the Delphic oraclewhich, according to Cassius Dio (63.14.2), was a reward to the PythiaTor uttering some oracles that suited him'21), but these are greatlyoutweighed by his depredations. Add his confiscation of temple landsfrom Delphi and (if it is true) his attempt to stop up the 'propheticchasm' with the bodies of men he had had murdered (Cassius Dio63.14.2; Lucian, Nero 10),22 and a decidedly two-faced attitude toDelphi emerges, finding expression in the strong phrasing of DioChrysostom.

It may be that the donation to the oracle is related to his requestto it, effectively acting as a bribe. Thus it would not be unreason-able to construe Nero's actions as indicative of a man who fullyexpected to be able to use Delphi to whatever ends, and withwhatever means, he felt appropriate. I hesitate to agree with MiriamGriffin's analysis that 'his respect for the Greek gods . . . is confirmedby the offerings he personally deposited in the Greek temples';23 thatseems nearer to what Nero would have us believe, and Pausanias forone did not feel able to.24

As Griffin points out 'Plutarch, who regards him as a criminal anda tyrant who nearly destroyed the empire, never mentions hisdepredations at Delphi where he himself was a priest'.25 Jones, whilementioning Plutarch as a priest at Delphi, does not address this20 Kennell (1988) 241 -2, observes that the dedications at the Argive Heraion, as well as those at

Olympia, were for athletic victories.21 Also ILS 8794, vv. 22-4, cited by Griffin (1984) 211.22 Levin observes that Plutarch would not have been as lenient in his judgement on Nero if this

story were true (Levin (1989) 1605). On Plutarch's attitudes, see below, n.26.23 G r i f f i n ( 1 9 8 4 ) 2 1 1 .24 Levin's observation on Delphi, that 'any benefactions of Nero were undoubtedly outweighed

by his rapacity' (Levin (1989) 1606) might well be extended to the other areas of Greece heleft his mark on. 25 Griffin (1984) 211.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 149

question directly; but if he is right to say of Plutarch that 'like otherGreek writers he was influenced favourably by Nero's philhellenism'and that he 'saw Nero's nature as an essentially good one corruptedby flattery',26 it may be that Plutarch's silence was prompted by thisunderlying respect (and see above, p. 141 n.6).

Arising from these accounts is an immediate contrast with Augustus:I discussed (above, pp. 128—9) a passage in which Pausanias mentionsan example of Augustus' removing antiquities from Greece, gives a listof examples over a long period to convey a sense of antiquity, andconcludes that 'the emperor Augustus merely practised an ancientcustom, which is observed by Greeks and barbarians alike' (8.46.4).The passage in which Nero's depredations are seen as the latest in along line of'innumerable plots' against Delphi (see above, pp. 147-9)provides a virtual mirror-image, although it is not so formallystructured as to be called a rhetorical device: in both passages, theremoval of objects is given a long lineage, going from mythical intohistorical times, and in both the emperor is seen as the most recentpractitioner. But the technique is used defensively to confer maximumlegitimacy on Augustus, aggressively to confer maximum opprobriumon Nero. This is as clear a case as one could have of Pausanias' ownpersonal views colouring his attitude to the events; not, I think it is fairto say, his recording of them — otherwise, he would simply haveomitted Augustus' deprivations. Thus I see it as a firm indication ofPausanias' objectivity, and consistent honesty of purpose.

Olympia has featured in this discussion more than previously inthis study, both for Nero's removal of objects, and for his dedication offour crowns. But there was a considerable, and recently increasinglywell understood, involvement of Nero with Olympia. The extent andnature of Neronian buildings at Olympia is becoming clearer asGerman excavations reveal a picture in some respects very differentfrom that hitherto accepted.27 What is clear is that Pausaniasmentions none of them. These omissions are most readily explainedby Pausanias' general reluctance to discuss matters modern, whichforms the starting point for this study; and yet, Pausanias on occasiondoes discuss modern buildings.

Jones (1971) 33-4, 18-19; on Plutarch and Delphi under Hadrian, Swain (1991).Sinn (1991). I thank Ulrich Sinn, the director of the excavations of Roman imperialOlympia, for pointing out to me that despite its regular appearance in secondary literature(e.g. most recently Alcock (1993) 190), there is no evidence for the existence of the 'arch ofNero' at Olympia, much less for its supposed destruction after his death.

150 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

Interestingly, especially in view of KennelPs argument that Nero'spurpose in visiting Greece was to become periodonikes, agonisticaspects of his extended tour of Greece, including Olympia, are notmentioned by Pausanias (bar his dedication of his crowns), althoughother sources make great play of them.28 Manifold opportunities areafforded by Nero's tour of the games of Greece for illustrating theblacker side of his character: he won the chariot-race at Olympia byblatant corruption (Suet. Nero 24.2; cf. Cassius Dio 63.14.1),29 andadded to the programme a musical contest, doubtless for his ownbenefit as an enthusiastic lyre-player, and 'contrary to custom' (Suet.Nero 23.1); other examples could be added.30

However, Pausanias bypasses these opportunities, which suggeststhat his interests lay exactly where we would expect them to, in theartistic and religious aspects of the site, and that he would onlycomment on individuals if the course of the narrative naturallypresented him with an opportunity to do so. This practice tells againstthe accuracy of Dio Chrysostom's report, in the continuation of thepassage from the Oration to the Rhodians (see above, p. 147) thatNero 'removed most of the statues on the Akropolis of Athens'(31.148) which is not matched by any other source, and which I havealready suggested should be disregarded (see above, p. 44 n.4); inaddition, it sits oddly with the Neronian inscription on the Parthenon(see below, pp. 153-4). As noted, Dio also refers in this passage toNero's stealing objects from Olympia, Delphi and Pergamon, whichis supported by other authors. However, his statement concerningPergamon that its 'precinct was his very own' is obscure, not least inview of Cassius Dio's statement that it belonged to Augustus(59.28.1); perhaps the association had lapsed after Augustus' death.Tellingly, Dio Chrysostom appends to his list of Nero's thefts ofstatues from Greece 'why bother to mention those of other places?',implying (not necessarily truthfully) that he knew of many more.

28 Nero was not the first high-ranking Roman to participate in the games, as Germanicus haddone so on his tour in AD 17/18, winning the four-horse chariot-race; on an inscriptionrecording this on a limestone block, perhaps a statue base, Sherk (1988) no.33.

29 Cassius Dio adds that the bribe of HS 1.000.000 which Nero paid the Hellanodikai was laterrecovered by Galba; so too the HS 400,000 paid to Delphi.

30 Philostratus VA 4.24 on his victories with the lyre, in the heralds' and the tragedians' contests(cf. Suet. Nero 24.1), which should be seen in the light of Suetonius' comment that 'the citiesin which it was the custom to hold contests in music had adopted the rule of sending all thelyric prizes to him' {Nero 22.3). It may be wondered whether his interest in the lyre is aconscious manifestation of his interest in Apollo, and whether his practice of always wearinghis hair 'in tiers of curls, and during the trip to Greece also letting it grow long and hang downbehind' (Suet. Nero 51) was in purposeful imitation of Apollo, whose customary hairstyle this was.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 151

Corinth

While Nero's concentration on his tour was on Corinth, Olympia andDelphi, his approach to the first was very different from that which headopted towards the latter two. He stayed at Corinth,31 and there heparticipated in the Isthmian games, using them as the stage for hisdeclaration of freedom for Greece. He also started to cut the canal - itsimpact, had he succeeded, is hard to assess, but it was clearly a seriousattempt. Otherwise he made no further significant intervention orinvestment in Corinth, which was a Roman foundation and thereforedid not have the continuity and consequent authenticity of Athens,Olympia or Delphi. These were the centres of the continuing ratherthan revived Greek culture, however obvious the Roman additions,including his own, such as the addition of the musical competition atOlympia (Suet. Nero 23.1, 'contrary to custom'); the gap of 102 yearsin the active life of Corinth between Mummius' destruction andCaesar's re-foundation precludes such continuity. But its position asthe chief city of the province made it an obvious focus for an imperialvisit.

The project of cutting the Corinth canal, contemplated by Caesarand by Caligula, who had the area surveyed (see above, p. 86), wastaken further by Nero (Suet. Nero 19.2; Philostratos VA 4.24 says thatthe canal advanced by four stades before it was stopped).32 Thisattempt is referred to by Pausanias in an oblique and revealingmanner: 'He who attempted to turn Peloponnese into an islanddesisted before he had dug through the Isthmus. The beginning of thecutting may still be seen; but it was not carried as far as the rock'(2.1.5; a relief Hercules from Nero's attempt is still visible).33 Thereference to Nero must be presumed to have been sufficiently obviousto Pausanias' readers, and to be intended to make a point — thedisdain of even naming Nero is in marked contrast to the first mentionin Pausanias of Augustus which is so detailed as even to give theimpression that Augustus might not be known to his readers (seeabove, p. 4).31 It is quite probable that he stayed at Corinth longer than elsewhere, but his timetable is

uncertain (Bradley (1978b) 71-2).32 Note also Nero, or digging through the Isthmus of Corinth in the Lucianic corpus, perhaps by one of

the Philostrati (Bowersock (1969) 3). Nero's canal in fact extended much further thanPhilostratos believed (Wiseman (1978) 50).

33 On Nero and the canal, Levy (1991) 189 n.2, 191. As Bradley notes, the project was notimpulsive, but 'had a serious side to it and is suggestive of previous careful consideration'(Bradley (1979) 156). For the Hercules relief, Salowey (1994) 94, pi.29a, raising thepossibility that it may represent Nero as Hercules; also, Wiseman (1978) 51 fig. 46.

152 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

Pausanias continues immediately with a judgement on the project:'so Peloponnese is still, what nature made it, mainland'; he mentionstwo similar projects elsewhere, and concludes 'so hard is it for man todo violence to the works of God (ta theia)\ The combination of thefailure even to name Nero and the accusation of impiety, in what is(for the sequential reader) the first mention of Nero by Pausanias is apowerful one. The sense of violation has been remarked on in othercontexts, as has the sense of appropriateness, here transgressed. Thereis no such condemnation of Tiberius for his canal near Antioch(8.29.3, above, p. 82); and no mention at all of previous interest incutting the Corinth canal. It may be that Pausanias deemed Nero'sinterest worthy of mention because he was the first actually to begincutting. Whatever the motivation, his account gives an impressionless of violation per se than of a specifically Neronian violation, as ifNero - unnamed but unmistakable - were the only person ever toattempt this impious deed.

The notion of the impiety of Nero's attempt is strong also in DioCassius (62.16.1-2) and Pliny (JV//4.10), although the latter appliesit equally to all who had attempted to cut the canal. Dio's account isvivid: 'when the first workers touched the earth, blood spouted fromit, groans and bellowings were heard, and many phantoms appeared'.This is reminiscent of the portentous events mentioned in relation toAugustus and Caligula, particularly of the statue of Athena spittingblood, also told by Dio (see above, p. 123). In the case of the canal,Dio goes on to say that Nero set an example by beginning theexcavation himself.

Sparta

Mention has been made of the investment in Sparta by Augustus inparticular, the reward for its support for him at Actium; and evidencewas cited for possible benefactions by Tiberius at nearby Gytheion(see above, p. 83). Spawforth refers to 'the formal involvement of thecitizen-assembly, in inscriptions of Roman date simply referred to as"the people", shown by decrees of the time of Gaius and Claudius; headds that 'Pausanias knew of a historic building near the Agora, theScias, in which the assembly met in his day; and inscriptions showthat it continued to be convened into the third century'.34 There is,34 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 147, with reference to 3.12.10; Pausanias says the Skias was

built by Theodoros of Samos.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 153

then, consistent involvement by successive Roman emperors withSparta; and this was to continue with the foundation of several newgames in the late first and second centuries AD.

Nero, in contrast, had nothing to do with Sparta, and on his visit toGreece he omitted Sparta from his itinerary. Of course, Sparta wasnot the only significant omission from his tour, as he also omittedAthens, but he did leave his mark on Athens, in contrast to Sparta,which suggests that it was even less favoured.

Athens

Although there is extremely limited evidence for the relationship ofNero with Athens,35 what there is yields points of considerable interestfor present purposes. It was noted above that Augustus called himselfthe New Apollo and that an inscription also refers to Nero as such, ona small marble base (see above, p. 121 n.44).36 This is, as KevinCarroll observes, the only one of the inscriptions associating him withAthens which gives him a title.37 It does not, however, indicate anyspecifically Athenian connection.

In contrast, the best-known of the Neronian inscriptions in Athens,that on the east architrave of the Parthenon, does. While the text isclear, some of its implications are open to interpretation, althoughCarroll has refuted the notion that the inscription indicates there-dedication of the Parthenon to Nero.38 As Carroll points out, of theNeronian inscriptions from Athens, only the Parthenon inscription'gives any hint of benefactions conferred on the city by the emperor'.39

Carroll, asking whether the inscription was 'an act of flattery made inthe hope of future gain', concludes that this partly accounts for it,35 Carroll (1982) 65, citing seven or eight relevant inscriptions, including that on the Parthenon.36 Suet. Nero 53 on Nero's association with Apollo and Helios. Both Suetonius {Nero 25) and

Cassius Dio (63.20.5) mention his popular acclamation on his return from Greece (at,significantly, the Greek city of Naples): Dio relates that he was acclaimed as 'our Hercules'and 'our Apollo', and Suetonius that he wore the Olympic crown and carried the Pythian.

37 Carroll (1982) 65.38 Carroll (1982) is the most detailed study. The inscription (/Gil2 3277), which dates from 61/2

AD, reads: 'The Boule of the Areiopagus and the Boule of the Six Hundred and the people ofAthens (have honoured) the greatest Imperator Nero Caesar Claudius Augustus G[erm]anicus,son of god, when the Hoplite General for the eighth time, epimeletes, and nomothetes wasTiberius Claudius Novius, son of Philinos, and when the priestess (of Athene) was Paullina,daughter of Capito' (tr. Sherk (1988) 115 no. 78).

Refuting the notion of re-dedication to Nero, Carroll (1982) esp. 59-63, countering Jones(1978) 33 in particular. Alcock (1993) 182 maintains that the inscription 'informed theviewer that that temple itself was rededicated at one point to Nero'; also, Oliver (1983) 102,(1981) 417. Most recently, Spawforth (1994b) 234-7. 39 Carroll (1982) 65.

154 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j

adding that 'this motive was involved in most honors conferred by theAthenians'.40 The attempt to forestall further Neronian thefts of theart of Athens by making his freedman, Secundus Carrinas, eponymousarchon (see above, p. 145) was just such an example.

In support of the idea of the inscription as an 'act of flattery' is itsprominent position over the entrance to the Parthenon, one of themost famous and hallowed of all Greek temples, and the mostprominent and renowned building in the central religious area of theheart of ancient Greece. More loosely, he followed Augustus, whosetemple of Roma and Augustus was built just beyond the east end ofthe Parthenon (see above, pp. 123-4). The Neronian inscription isnot only at the same end, the 'business' end of the Parthenon, but isconsiderably higher than the temple of Roma and Augustus, makingit also highly visible, albeit in a different way. This conspicuousadvertisement of Nero, and of Athens' respect for him, may tell ussomething about the Athenians' attitude to Nero, but it tells usnothing about Nero's attitude to the Athenians nor about his attitudeto Athens, present or past.41

The same is harder to sustain in the case of the theatre of Dionysos -some remodelling was undertaken, and an inscription on the epistyleof AD 61/2 tells us that the theatre was dedicated to Dionysos andNero.42 The inscription from the theatre should not be taken to meanthat Nero also rebuilt it — dedicator and builder are by no meanssynonyms - although it does not preclude that possibility. If Nero didnot in fact rebuild the theatre, Carroll may be right to say that 'thereis no evidence that Nero ever did anything for Athens'.43 However,the extension of its dedication to include him alongside Dionysosshows that Athens did something for Nero. As in other cases wherethis can be seen to occur, hope of benefactions is likely to have beenuppermost in Athenian minds. Whether or not Nero made anyinvestment in Athens, or was simply the object of blandishments from'the Boule of the Areiopagus and the Boule of the Six Hundred andthe people of Athens' (to quote the Parthenon inscription), heomitted the city from his tour of Greece. If the Parthenon inscriptionhad been intended to flatter Nero with a view to possible benefits toAthens, it appears that it did not work.

40 Carroll (1982) 67.41 See above, pp. 115-6 on the word autokrator, which is used on the inscription; it is hard to see

why it should have a special significance here, for example as a flattering term.42 S t u r g e o n (1977) 4 5 ; T r a v l o s (1971) 5 3 8 . 43 C a r r o l l (1982) 6 5 .

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 155

Pausanias gives Nero's visit to Greece as a whole a very low profile,giving the reader only minimal evidence that it had ever happened.In Athens, the Parthenon inscription and the theatre of Dionysosprovided visible evidence of Nero's impact on Athens, but suchmodern features were never Pausanias' priority and we should not besurprised that he found other features of the theatre and, particularly,the Parthenon much more deserving of description.

An emperor wishing to be seen as being in the tradition of theglorious Greek past, as a descendant of it rather than a reviver of it,could only benefit by associating himself with the most fullyauthenticated Greek cities, sanctuaries and customs. In this light, thededication of the theatre of Dionysos at Athens to Dionysos and Nero— whether or not on the initiative of Nero himself— would be an idealway of associating him as an artist (arguably his favourite guise) withthe home of performance. However, one cannot presume an activerather than a purely reactive role on the part of the emperor in theconstruction or embellishment of provincial buildings. If Nero everhad any intention of performing in the theatre of Dionysos, he had toforego it when he decided to stay away from Athens.

VESPASIAN

The only mention of Vespasian by Pausanias (7.17.3-4; see above,p. 140), concerning his re-imposition of tribute on the Corinthians,includes the interesting phrase that Vespasian said that 'Greece hadforgotten what it was to be free.' As observed, the implication is thatVespasian was left with no choice, and that the Greeks wereresponsible for provoking their own disadvantage in this respect. Thereference to tribute has been taken to mean that the real reasonbehind Vespasian's move was the cost of the administration of theprovince,44 and this may have been at least part of the motivation.

This was no isolated act of Vespasian: Suetonius tells us that herevoked the freedom of Achaia, Lycia, Rhodes, Byzantium andSamos (Vesp. 8.4) ,45 The revoking of Rhodes' freedom — presumablythat given by Claudius — is especially interesting in view of theparticular favour it enjoyed under Nero (at whose instigationClaudius had given it freedom), to judge from Dio Chrysostom's44 Bosworth (1973) 61.45 Bosworth (1973) 60-1; Alcock (1994) 103-4. On Vespasian's wider policy, of which this was

part, Braund (1984) 187; Luttwak (1976) 26-7, 112-13.

156 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

oration to the Rhodians. Rhodes' freedom was later restored,probably by Titus.46 The occasion of the revoking of the freedom ofAchaia is given by Philostratos (VA 5.41) as Vespasian's arrival inGreece in late AD 70, also mentioned by Josephus (BJ 7.21-2).Pausanias makes no mention of Vespasian's visit to Greece, evenwhen mentioning the revoking of the freedom of Achaia, exactly as hemade no reference to Nero's visit to Greece, even when relating hisoriginal gift of freedom.

The tone of Pausanias' reporting of Vespasian's reversal of Nero'sgift of freedom is in marked contrast to the indignation expressed inthe letters of Apollonios of Tyana to Vespasian, in which the actionsof the two emperors are explicitly juxtaposed, to the disadvantage ofVespasian: 'you have, they say, enslaved Hellas, and you imagine youhave excelled Xerxes. You are mistaken. You have only fallen belowNero. For the latter held our liberties in his hand and respected them. . . Nero freed the Hellenes in play, but you have enslaved them in allseriousness' (VA 5.41).

Vespasian is credited by Suetonius (Vesp. 8.5-9.1) with bothrestorations and new works in Rome. As with the objects stolen byVitellius, they would be of no relevance to Pausanias. Like otheremperors before him, Vespasian displayed stolen Greek sculpture,placing in the temple of Peace many Greek sculptures which had beenlooted by Nero and, in the time-honoured manner, lodged in his ownhome (Pliny, NH34.84; Josephus, BJ 7.158-62, does not name Nero,but clearly has his stolen treasures in mind).47

In the provinces, Vespasian is known to have helped pay forbuilding at the theatre in Sparta which had been rebuilt in the time ofAugustus, and probably further modified during Tiberius' reign (seeabove, pp. 130-1).48

TRAJAN

Despite the fact that Trajan's reign saw more building in theprovinces than that of any emperor bar Augustus and Hadrian,49 and46 Jones (1978) 28.47 Pollitt (1983) 155, notes that Pliny was a contemporary of Vespasian and admired his

achievements; it is not possible to tell how far, if at all, that determined the form of hisreferences to him. It has been suggested that Pliny is deliberately juxtaposing Nero andVespasian as opposites in their attitudes to art, almost as a rhetorical device (Isager (1991)224-9).

48 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 105. Vespasian's name (as autokrator) is found on anarchitrave block thought to be from a stoa in or near the theatre.

49 MacMullen (1959) 209.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 157

despite his being the only emperor between those two to visit Athens,Pausanias mentions him only twice, in neither case citing anybuildings in Greece. One which we might have expected someone ofPausanias' education to show some interest in is the library ofPantainos, built in the Agora of Athens between AD 98 and 102, andbearing a dedicatory inscription to Trajan.50 But, like the librarycarried off by Sulla (see above, p. 101), it receives no mention.

In his book on Messenia, Pausanias says that 'the emperor (basileus)Trajan granted the people of Mothone freedom and independence'(4.35.3). Typically of Pausanias, his own antiquarian interests are tothe fore, as he takes the opportunity to express his belief that Mothonewas the Homeric Pedasos (4.35.1), and the action of Trajan is just themost recent in a long string. It is perhaps surprising, given that bookfour is mainly historical in content, that such a declaration is notgiven more attention. It is also noteworthy since Pausanias hasalready said that Nero's gift was revoked by Vespasian, so return ofthe gift of freedom (however nominal) to one city is of some interest.

At 5.12.6, Pausanias gives us a brief but dense selection of Trajan'sactivities: after mentioning a statue of him (alongside one of Hadrian)in the temple of Zeus at Olympia, he informs us that Trajanconquered the Getae (i.e. the Dacians) and the Parthians, and that 'ofhis buildings the most remarkable are the baths called after him, agreat circular theatre, a building for horse-races, two furlongs long,and the Forum at Rome, the last of which is worth seeing for itssplendour, and especially for its bronze roof (5.12.6; see above, p. 42).

Trajan's statue at Olympia was, according to Pausanias, 'dedicatedby the Greek nation (koipantesHellenes)'. This is not the first example ofa Roman statue in a Greek temple and, with Hadrian to come, is byno means the last (see below, pp. 184—5). However, Pausanias' lack ofidentification of the 'statues of Roman emperors' he saw in theMetroon at Olympia (see above, p. 120) stands in marked contrast tohis naming two such statues in the neighbouring temple of Zeus. It istrue that Pausanias' interest in the Zeus temple in general is muchgreater than that in the Metroon, which was one of the smallest of allDoric temples and quite overshadowed by the Zeus temple, whichwas among the largest mainland temples, and richly adorned bothexternally and internally. But Pausanias gives us two contrastingpieces of information about the Metroon, namely that it housedstatues of Roman emperors, and that it retained its ancient name

50 Camp (1986) 190; Wycherley (1957) 150.

158 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

nonetheless. The possibility that the statue of the Mother of the Godsthat he mentions had been placed in the Heraion raises the possibilityof a third, if it is in fact the original cult statue of the Metroon (5.20.2).

For Pausanias to choose as one of the two facts deemed worthmentioning concerning the Metroon the presence of 'statues ofRoman emperors' is unexpected. Perhaps it is even more unexpectedto mention two such statues in describing the temple of Zeus, whichafforded so many more opportunities than the Metroon for choice.The fact that he also chose to name the emperors in this instance mustbe taken as a sign of goodwill towards the two concerned, Trajan andHadrian. Had Pausanias not felt favourable towards them he wouldnot have identified them, or even mentioned them anonymously.That Pausanias is an admirer of Hadrian is repeatedly clear; that heappears also to be favourable towards Trajan may owe something tothe latter's being Hadrian's adoptive father.

Greece figured little in Trajan's plans and works, his interests beingrather in other areas, such as Dacia and Parthia, and it is interestingthat in the brief selection of Trajan's activities Pausanias gives, hementions both of these key foreign conquests of Trajan. He alsomentions a series of Trajan's buildings in Rome, again an unexpectedinterest in the modern, and again indicative of a positive attitudetowards Trajan. This may have been strengthened by the fact that, asthis passage makes clear, he had visited Rome, seen, and beenimpressed by, these works of Trajan.

The concentration of Trajan on areas other than Greece, reflectedin Pausanias' paragraph, does not mean that Trajan was notpersonally aware of Greece and Greek artists: a letter of Pliny relatesthat Trajan's response to Pliny's request for an architect to be sentfrom Rome to Bithynia was: 'as there is no province that is notfurnished with architects of skill and ingenuity, you cannot possiblybe in want of one; pray do not imagine it is your quickest way to getthem from Rome, for it is usually from Greece that they come hither'(Ep. 10.40). The useful, if incidental, inference is that the export ofGreek architects at least (and perhaps by implication artists ingeneral) was flourishing in the late first and early second centuries AD,a symptomatic reversal of emphasis from the second century BG whenthe first Roman architect, Cossutius, was introduced to Athens towork on the temple of Olympian Zeus (see above, p. 126).

This flourishing of Greek art is part of the wider interest in Greecewhich was growing at the time; it is further attested by the likely

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 159

benefaction of some kind by Trajan at Sparta which brought him thetitle soter,51 a title also attested for him at Athens.52 In the sameconnection, the institution late in his reign of the Leonidean gameswas a re-foundation, a conscious return to part of Sparta's past, andsupported with related administrative posts.53 Acts like these exemplifythe growing interest in the past of Greece that was discussed in thefirst chapter. This process reaches its culmination under Hadrian, towhom I now turn.

HADRIAN

The last paragraph sets the scene for the full development of thesethemes and preoccupations under Hadrian and the Antonines. Thesuccession of emperors by adoption brought with it a succession ofpolicy and preoccupations, and the interest in the literature andculture of Classical Greece referred to in the previous paragraph asoccurring under Trajan became a substantial and widespreadmovement under Hadrian. There are more altars dedicated toHadrian than to any other emperor,54 and more was built in theprovinces in his reign than in that of any other emperor.55 Pausaniasis, on the bald statistics, shown as a true representative of the mood ofthe times, as he refers to Hadrian more often than to any other emperor.

As noted earlier, Eisner has detected in Pausanias 'a sense ofinevitable decline and fall'.56 However, as I have already argued inresponse, the detailing of decline ends with Mummius, and thepicture of Hadrian and his activities in Greece derived from Pausanias(as from other sources) shows a zenith rather than the nadir Eisner'sphrase might lead one to expect. As John Wilkes has said, 'it was onlywith the accession of Hadrian in 117 that Greece found an emperorgenuinely sympathetic towards her cultural traditions'.57 The truth ofthis is most famously enshrined in the (admittedly much later)description of Hadrian as 'graeculus' (HA Hadr. 1.5).58

Before looking at Hadrian's involvement in Greece, and atPausanias' record of that involvement, a consideration of his broaderactivities in the provinces is appropriate. Perhaps most important to

51 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 105. 52 Oliver (1983) 103, citing IG n2 3284.53 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 106. 54 Price (1984a) 69, 216.55 MacMullen (1959) 209. 56 Eisner (1992) 19. 57 Wilkes (1991) 232.58 Onthe//^//flrfr.,Benario (1980); on the date of the Historia Augusta, Barnes (1978) 18, Birley

(1978).

160 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

stress is the extent of Hadrian's own travels in the provinces: 'hardlyany emperor ever travelled with such speed over so much territory'(HA Hadr. 13.5). Apart from a short break in Rome in AD 128, hetoured from AD 120-131 in Africa and the Eastern provinces,including Greece, and these visits left a substantial impression as wellas a physical legacy, in terms of buildings, cults, festivals and games.This was inevitable given the nature of Hadrian, his desire to beassociated with the past glories of the areas he was visiting (Greeceabove all), and his wish to match those glories by creating acomparable modern environment and, equally, by re-creating animage of the past.

In the Historia Augusta, it is observed that Hadrian 'gave the nameHadrianopolis to many cities, as, for example, Carthage and a part ofAthens' (HA Hadr. 20.4—5). The case of Athens will be discussedbelow, but it is worth noting here that the intrinsic self-promotion ofHadrian, although at its most obvious here, is a recurrent theme in hisbenefactions to the provinces. It is evident again in his foundation ofgames at Smyrna called Olympia Hadrianea; here there is theadditional point that, as Price notes, these games were founded 'onthe model of the Athenian games', reinforcing the association ofHadrian with Athens which will be seen below to have been thecornerstone of his policy of embellishment in the provinces.59 Althoughthe quotation from the Historia Augusta given refers to Hadrian'snaming 'many cities' after himself, we should not assume that thesewere all new foundations. As Millar has pointed out, in the East afterCaesar and Augustus, 'genuinely new foundations, involving actualconstruction, were very rare'.60

An oblique form of self-promotion adopted by Hadrian was the useof memorial foundations, such as Antinoopolis in Egypt in memory ofhis favourite Antinoos, statues of whom have been widely found in theprovinces (including examples at Olympia and Delphi).61 He alsobuilt an elaborate funerary monument for his horse Borysthenes inNarbonensis: the parallel with Alexander and Bucephalus cannothave been coincidental (Cassius Dio 69.10.2, n.2-3).62

Apart from buildings, Hadrian also had an impact on religiouspractices in many provinces, and a few examples will suffice to

59 Price (1984a) 67-8.60 Millar (1987) xiii; Hadrianotherai in Mysia could be added to the examples Millar gives {HA

Hadr. 20.13). 61 On the Antinoos cult, Price (1984a) 68.62 MacMullen (1959) 222 n.5.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 161

illustrate this. At Pergamon, there was a statue to Hadrian as a god inthe sanctuary of Asklepios, probably connected with the celebrationof the imperial festival there.63 A suggestion of the divinity of Hadrianwas also made at Ephesos, where the initiates of Dionysos put up astatue of Hadrian, apparently on equal terms with that of the god.64

At Kyzikos, the exact nature of the relationship between Hadrian andZeus is unclear, but at the least honours were paid to him in thetemple.65 The association of emperors as a whole with Zeus was notedabove (apropos of Augustus, and used also by Caligula and Claudius),and will be discussed further in the following discussion of Hadrianand Greece.

Hadrian and Greece

All the evidence we have - including the account of Pausanias -suggests that the philhellenism which had characterized Nero's reign,and had been generally less prominent under the succeeding emperors(with Trajan providing something of an exception), was revived andbrought to a peak under Hadrian.66 This manifested itself in a broadrange of activities contributing to the cultural and physical embellish-ment of Greece - in Pausanias' words, the Megarians 'were the onlypeople whom even the emperor Hadrian could not make to thrive'(1.36.3). As explained (see above, p. 13), this phrase implies no failureon Hadrian's part, since the current state of the Megarians resultedfrom their impious murder of the herald Anthemokritos.

The extent and scope of Hadrian's activities in Greece are too greatto be encompassed fully here, but much can be gleaned from theaspects that Pausanias mentions. While the personal aspect of theseactivities has been mentioned already, and will repeatedly beapparent in what follows, it must be acknowledged from thebeginning of this section that these activities were not a series of whimsor fancies, but elements of a coherent and concentrated programme ofbuilding and intervention in other spheres, designed as what Spawforthhas called 'part of a fairly systematic imperial attempt to reinforce thestructures of civic life in the Roman east'.67

The importance of the imperial cult and its paraphernalia has beennoted at several points in this study, and can be seen in evidence againin Hadrianic Greece. In this connection, a close association with the

63 Price (1984a) 148. 64 Price (1984a) 118. 65 Price (1984a) 155.66 As observed by Syme (1965) 247-9. 67 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 108.

162 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j

long-established religious centres of Greece was beneficial to Hadrian.The value of such association has been noted above as a means ofusing antiquity and established custom as a means to legitimacy, andto self-promotion as an inheritor of the legacy of the old world, and aspromoter of the comparable glories of the new.

The connection of Hadrian with Delphi is repeatedly apparent,particularly from surviving inscriptions; he also constructed buildingsthere.68 Although the Panhellenion is primarily associated withAthens, the suggestion of enlarging the Delphic Amphictyony wasmade to the Amphictyonic League in 125, and may be seen as akind of forerunner; the idea did not find favour, perhaps due to theinflexibility of the Amphictyony, as Dietrich Willers suggests, makingit unsuitable to Hadrian's desire to create a wholly new administrativestructure.69 The relevance of the imperial cult becomes apparentsoon with the offer of divine honours to Hadrian by the AchaeanLeague in 126, and the cult titles Tythios' and cneos Pythios';indeed, many of the altars noted above as being more commonlydedicated to Hadrian than to any other emperor are related to thisattempt to unify the eastern provinces. The creation of the Panhel-lenion involved not just Greece, but Asia Minor also, and itssignificance in placing Greece at the centre of the eastern provincesis considerable.

The Panhellenion was formally founded in AD 131/2 with thededication of the temple of Olympian Zeus. The temple is discussedby Pausanias, and will be further considered in the next section,along with the monuments and statues associated with the foundationand the temple. Here attention should be drawn to Hadrian'spersonal aggrandizement which resulted from the creation of thePanhellenion and its associated buildings: the association of successiveemperors with Zeus has been noted, and is nowhere more conspicuous(or more political) than in this case, the completion of the biggest ofall temples of Zeus by Hadrian. The imperial epithet Tanhellenios'is also attested in Athens, although not in the emperor's lifetime.70

The link forged between Hadrian and Zeus was, though, by nomeans confined to this one spectacular building: from AD 128/9, thecommonest epithet of Hadrian was 'Olympios' or the variation'Hadrianos Zeus Olympios'. In Sparta, there was a civic cult of ZeusOlympios in Hadrian's honour, and in Athens he founded games

68 Flaceliere (1971); Jones (1966) 63-6; Robert (1937) 88-9; Price (1984a) 244; Swain (1991).69 Willers (1990) 99-100. 70 Benjamin (1963) 59-60.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 163

called the 'Olympia' in honour of Zeus Olympios.71 The cult titleEleutherios, previously used for Augustus (see above, p. 133 withn.86), is applied to Hadrian just once in Athens, on a seat in thetheatre of Dionysos (which was altered under Hadrian) for a priest ofthe cult;72 however, he is honoured in two inscriptions from theAkropolis as the son of Zeus Eleutherios, perhaps carrying theimplication of his being the brother of Athena.73

The remarkable presence in the Parthenon of a statue of Hadrian -specifically stated by Pausanias (1.24.7) t o have been the only statuein the cella apart from the Parthenos itself - will not only havereinforced the connection with Athena, but constituted an exceptionallyand unmistakably bold stroke which further associated Hadrian withthe heart of the religious life of Classical Athens.74 Similarly, a statueof Hadrian stood in the temple of Zeus at Olympia, next to one of hisadoptive father, Trajan (5.12.6; see above, p. 157; below, p. 185).

It has been suggested that the altars in the provinces as a wholeshould not necessarily be taken as a sign of Hadrian's attempt toadvance the idea (and practice) of the Panhellenion, but that theyoccur simply as a result of Hadrian's travels in the provinces.75 In thecase of Athens, the centre of the Panhellenion, where the buildingsand associated matters of the Panhellenion were so substantial andnumerous, it is hard to see that altars were actually needed topromote the Panhellenion. It may well be, therefore, that the erectionof a series of altars would have been deemed appropriate to mark thethree visits to Athens made by Hadrian (in AD 124, 128, 131).

In the case of Sparta, Hadrian is known to have visited in AD I 24/5and 128/9, and there is considerable evidence of his investment in thecity, its customs and administration.76 The altars datable to his visit inAD 124/5 have been seen by Benjamin as a 'reflection of the newPanhellenic importance that Hadrian bestowed on that city'.77

Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 109, pointing out that Pausanias also saw a Spartan templeof Zeus Olympios. Waywell and Wilkes (1994) 419. On the 'Olympia', Spawforth(forthcoming).On the theatre inscription, Maass (1972) 116, detailing epithets of Zeus applied to Hadrian.On Hadrian and the theatre of Dionysos, Sturgeon (1977) 45, 48.Raubitschek (1945); he suggests that 'Zeus Eleutherios' in the inscription denotes Trajan,Hadrian's adoptive father (130-1).Graindor (1934) 57-8. The base of this statue may survive (Raubitschek (1945) 129).Price (1984a) 69.Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 109-10, 134-5, on Hadrianic buildings in Sparta, secularand sacred, but containing mostly uncertain attributions (none mentioned by Pausanias).Waywell and Wilkes (1994) 419. Hadrian also gave territory to Sparta, as he did to otherfavoured cities, e.g. Kephallenia to Athens. 77 Benjamin (1963) 76.

164 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

Hadrian held the patronomate, a local magistracy associated withthe 'Lykourgan customs' which were revived under the empire,78 butapparently shunned by Nero (above). A useful parallel is the creationin the AD 130s of a 'Kytherodikes', a name used by Thucydides(4.53.2) for a Spartan official with responsibility for Kythera, aposition apparently already obsolete by his day.79 These are prominentmanifestations of the archaizing tendency often seen as the hallmarkof the Roman attitude to Greece at this period, and also apparent inthe language of contemporary dedications (see above, p. 29).

Hadrian and Athens

As Peisistratos had made Eleusis effectively a gateway to Athens, soinitiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries seems to have become agateway to membership of Athenian society for many Republicanand imperial figures. Hadrian is the prime exemplar of this interest,being initiated in AD I 12/13 (in which year he was also archon) andtaking part in the Mysteries on each of his three visits to Athens (inAD 128 with Antinoos, although it is not certain whether the latterwas initiated), more than any other emperor.80 This association withthe most prestigious of the Athenian religious festivals was anessential part of the 'baggage' of any emperor wishing to be seen as acredible member of the Athenian establishment; Nero's awareness ofthe importance of such credibility in this context no doubt contributedto his decision not to risk scandal by seeking initiation (see above,p. 144). But such association with Eleusis could prove a mutualprocess, since after being initiated, Hadrian made many gifts to theAthenians.81

Spawforth has characterized Hadrian's aim as being 'to endowAthens as the capital of Hellenism'.82 While the fact that Hadrianbestowed most benefits on Athens does not in itself indicate hismotive, the accumulation of such benefits, in conjunction with thecentral role of Athens in the Panhellenion, supports this view. Theparticular point of reference for Spawforth's comment is Hadrian'sinstitution of three games at Athens, the Panhellenia, Olympia andHadrianea. These continued the policy which we have seen since thebeginning of the empire of founding games in Greece, as a means ofpromoting (and doubtless popularizing, on the 'bread and circuses'principle) the founding emperor as well as making Roman influence

78 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 108. 79 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) i n .80 Clinton (1989a) 56-8 . 81 Cited by Millar (1977) 37. 82 Spawforth (1989) 194.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 165

ever more pervasive. This policy was maintained by Hadrian, asnoted above in connection with the games at Sparta; and one couldadd the re-introduction into the winter Nemean games by Hadrian ofthe long version of the horse race (6.16.4).

In the case of Hadrian, there is a further element in the raising ofthe profile of the Panathenaia, the games which were associated withthe earliest phases of Athens' existence, their foundation variouslyattributed to Erichthonios or Theseus, and of which he was theagonothetes in AD 124/5.83 Their foundation (or re-foundation) in thesixth century BC, traditionally but by no means certainly in 566, andpossibly by Peisistratos,84 was based on the existing games. UnderHadrian, these games were now made iselastic, as were the otherthree, so that, as Spawforth points out,85 Athens now boasted four ofthe six iselastic games in Greece. The significance of this act canperhaps be indicated by remembering that the short period from582-566 BG had seen the addition of the games at Delphi, Isthmia,Nemea and Athens to those already long established at Olympia;however, of these, the games at Athens were the only ones which hadnot become part of the periodos of iselastic games. There were, inaddition, many other, lesser, local games, some of which were ofconsiderable status (such as the Aspis at Argos86), and others whichare not pertinent to the point being made here because they remainedof low status.

Thus the Hadrianic move should be seen as finally and deliberatelyraising Athens in this respect to equal status with the four greatathletic centres. The upgrading of a contest which had been inexistence for nearly seven hundred years showed the emphasisHadrian wished to put on Athens, his sense of the past and itspotential use as a means of making an impact on the present; but alsohis different approaches from his predecessors, and within his ownreign. Such a sense of the past is shown by Nero's choosing theIsthmian games to make his declaration of freedom for Greece (anddoing nothing comparable for Athens). On the use of the past topromote the present, Hadrian had, as noted, originally suggested anenlargement of the Delphic Amphictyony, but had received littlesupport from the Amphictyons; it is tempting to see his growinginterest in the games at Athens as parallel to his locating thePanhellenion at Athens.

Finally, a point about Hadrian's re-organization of the Panathenaia83 Kyle (1987) 24-5. 84 Kyle (1987) 25-31. 85 Spawforth (1989) 194.86 Amandry (1980) 231-2; Spawforth (1989) 193 and n.3.

166 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

which, while not made explicit, may in fact be the most significantaspect of it: the games were originally related to the unification ofAthens under Theseus - Thucydides (2.15) refers to the feast of theunification of Attica dating from Theseus. Plutarch (Thes. 24.3), inthe context of the unification of all the inhabitants of Attica into thenewly founded city of Athens, credits Theseus with the unificationand says that the Panathenaia were founded in honour of this event;and Pausanias (8.2.1) dates the name 'Panathenaia' from Theseus,following the same angle on unification as in Plutarch's account. Thecoincidence of Plutarch's and Pausanias' account must reflect acommon view of their age, which overlapped to some extent with theage of Hadrian.87 From a contemporary Roman point of view, thecommon desire to draw the past into the present meant going as farback into the past as possible, to give, as so often, legitimacy throughantiquity.

There was a greater antiquity than the era of Theseus: that of theearly kings of Attica such as Kekrops and Erechtheus, and indeedTheseus' own father, Aigeus. All of these were also among the originalEponymous Heroes, a group which Hadrian later joined (1.5; further,see below, pp. 168—71). But the parallel of Hadrian and Theseus was aparallel of first founder and latest founder; in the attempt to assertlegitimacy through antiquity, such a parallel could hardly be bettered.

And there is still further evidence of a conscious attempt toemphasize the parallel between Hadrian and Theseus. It is surely nocoincidence that Plutarch pairs Theseus and Romulus in his ParallelLives, personifying the parallel between Athens and Rome. It is justthis parallel which is found on a marble cuirassed statue of Hadrian,believed to be the one described by Pausanias (1.3.2) beside the statueof Zeus Eleutherios in front of the stoa of Zeus, and found appropriatelyon the west side of the Agora. As Homer Thompson's descriptionmakes clear, the parallelism and symbolism are explicit: 'Theemperor's cuirass bears the well-known logo: the goddess Athenastanding on the back of the wolf of Rome, or, as a cynic might read it,Athens superior to Rome but supported by Rome.'88 As Shear has putit, 'the combination of these emblematic figures clearly characterizesHadrian in his relation to the two cities, as benefactor of Athens andemperor of Rome'.89 Further, the juxtaposition of the statue of

87 Thompson (1961) 224; Kyle (1987) 15-31, esp. 24-5. 88 Thompson (1987) i4,pl.nia.89 Shear (1933) 181; on p. 183, Shear says 'no reason exists to doubt that the statue found in

front of the Stoa of Zeus is the same one reported as standing there by Pausanias'. Also,Harrison (1953) 73, 'our statue is probably the one which Pausanias saw'.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 167

Hadrian with that of Zeus Eleutherios cannot be coincidental: theregular adoption of Zeus by Roman emperors has been remarked on(see above, pp. 119—20), and will be seen below to be particularlyclose in the case of Hadrian. The cult title Eleutherios is one attestedfor Zeus, and once for Hadrian as well as Augustus (see above,pp. 133, 163); the juxtaposition of the Agora statues is a hint of anassociation between the emperor and this aspect of the god.90

If the parallel of Theseus and Romulus, personifying that of Athensand Rome, was current in Roman thinking, Hadrian's desire to beseen as a second Theseus, as the second founder of Athens, had ampleexternal justification, quite apart from his personal philhellenism andambition. The parallel between Hadrian and Theseus is arguably thebest-known aspect of his policy towards Athens, amply reflected in hisbuilding programme, to which I now turn.91

When Hadrian's extensive building programme in Athens isconsidered, the account of Pausanias forms a vital part of theevidence; that fact alone is a mark of the interest he shows in bothHadrian and Athens. It is, I suggest, not true of his account of theRoman period of any other city or sizeable town (it is, of course, trueof his accounts of several sanctuaries, such as Olympia, Delphi andEpidauros, but that is a reflection of his preoccupation with sanctuaries).The impact of Hadrian on the appearance of Athens will therefore beexamined in close conjunction with the text of Pausanias.

Although the attitude to Hadrian displayed by Pausanias (and'displayed' is a deliberately chosen word, so conspicuous are hisattitudes) will be assessed in the Conclusion, it is inescapable whenconsidering his discussion of the contribution of Hadrian to the lifeand embellishment of Athens. This is already apparent from his firstreference to Hadrian, noting the statue cited above as being the onefound in the Agora: 'here stands an image of Zeus, named Zeus ofFreedom, and a statue of the emperor Hadrian, the benefactor of hissubjects and especially of Athens' (1.3.2). Thus, not only are wepresented with the parallel, or at least association, of Zeus andHadrian, but we are left in no doubt that Pausanias sees Hadrian as'the benefactor of his subjects', and Athens as especially favoured. Ofthe latter point there can be no doubt: it has already been observed90 Benjamin (1963) 58; the association has been strengthened since Benjamin wrote by the

establishment of the separate identity of the Royal Stoa and the Stoa of Zeus, thus confirmingthe latter as the location of the statue; Benjamin (1963) 57-8, citing Raubitschek (1945).

91 Important recent discussions of Hadrian and Athens are Willers (1989) and (1990), the latterwith reviews by Spawforth (1992) and Boatwright (1994); Spawforth and Walker (1985);Boatwright (1983).

168 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j

that, in Spawforth's words, Hadrian's aim was 'to endow Athens asthe capital of Hellenism' (see above, p. 164), and we may seePausanias' words as evidence of the near-contemporary perception ofthe benefits brought by Hadrian.

For Pausanias, such benefaction may have been political, civic orreligious; but it is relevant mainly (not only) in terms of its physicalmanifestations. The first of these that he describes are the statues ofHadrian discussed above, not the only ones he notes. He continues toa monument which included a statue of Hadrian, that of theEponymous Heroes. This is one of the best-known monuments of theAgora in Athens, and one of the most important, providing a uniqueinsight into the workings of the post-Kleisthenic democracy and,more importantly for present purposes, into its changing form duringthe later Classical, Hellenistic and finally Roman Imperial periods.Its importance and details are known primarily from Pausanias (1.5) ,92

We have already seen how Hadrian placed himself at the heart ofthe religious life of Athens, and nothing could situate a figure in theheart of the very fabric of Athenian political and civic life likepromotion to status of an Eponymous Hero. In the case of Hadrian,his own promotion put him on a par with comparatively recentfigures like Attalos and Ptolemy, and ahead of Antigonos andDemetrios of Macedon who had been added in 307/6 and removed acentury later in one of the political changes of wind that overtookAthens. Most significantly, it placed him on a par with the early kingsand heroes of Athens, and it is here that the order of narrative used byPausanias is of particular interest.

Pausanias' description of the monument is almost an excuse toretell myths associated with the original Eponymous Heroes: he listsstatues of the ten Heroes, then concentrates on Kekrops and Pandion,discussing their identities and lineages. This interest in genealogy, inattempting to disentangle phases in the early history of Athens, isentirely commensurate with the interest in the early history of artdiscussed in the previous chapter.

To these original Heroes, Pausanias notes the addition of Attalosand Ptolemy (omitting Antigonos and Demetrios who had beenremoved, as noted, and whose quondam presence on the monumentwould in all probability have been untraceable to Pausanias), and92 The most detailed treatment of the monument is Shear (1970). There are references in

Aristophanes' Knights (977-80) and Peace (1180-4) to an earlier monument: Shear (1970)203-10; Thompson (1976) 70-2; Camp (1986) 97-100, 163-4, 167, 191.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 169

concludes by mentioning Hadrian. While this may be a simple list (asit is in chronological order), it has the effect of working up to Hadrian,an impression confirmed by the description of him as 'the basileus whodid most for the glory of God and the happiness of his subjects',adding that 'he never made war of his own free will, but he quelled therevolt of the Hebrews who dwell over above the Syrians [AD 132]'(1.5.5). This neatly combines stress on his piety with his accomplish-ments, the carefully chosen military deed showing him as a just manwho responds to the aggression of others, but does not institute violence.

But there is more to be extracted from this passage: the associationof Hadrian with Theseus, the founding father of Athens, has alreadybeen noted (and will be again), and the parallel is further strengthenedby his position here. After all, he is in the company of Aigeus, father ofTheseus, and Akamas, one of the sons of Theseus (as Pausanias notes,1.5.2). But Theseus himself is not on the monument; is it possible thatHadrian, juxtaposed with the father and the son of Theseus, wasconceived of as a modern Theseus? This theme will recur in thefollowing pages.

A further point, consciously exploited or not, was that the originalten Eponymous Heroes were chosen by Delphi after the oracle waspresented by Kleisthenes with a list of names. As Pausanias notes,Herodotos 'has told who it was that established ten tribes instead offour and replaced their old names by new ones', an interestingindication that he expects his readers to know their Herodotos as hedoes (the reference is to Hdt. 5.66, 69), or at least their history. Thereis no evidence of Delphic involvement in the selection of the laterEponymous Heroes, including Hadrian, but the monument featuredtripods at both ends as a reminder of Delphi's original role. Hadrian'sinterest in, and evident commitment to, Delphi as the seat of arguablythe most ancient and most mysterious form of Greek religion couldonly have been boosted by placement on a monument set up, in effect,in accordance with instructions from Delphi, however devalued theoracle may have been in this period.

Hadrian's elevation to the status of Eponymous Hero brought withit the naming of a tribe, Hadrianis, after him. In fact, after his initialreference to the statues, the tribes are Pausanias' starting point for hisdiscussion of both the original heroes, and of the newly-addedHadrian. His statue on the monument would be prominent andhighly visible to all who walked in the Agora, serving as a dailyreminder of his existence to the population of Athens, and not just the

170 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

members of the tribe named after him. And his statue, raised high -apparently higher than those of the other Eponymous Heroes93 - inthe very centre of Athens, would serve as a conspicuous reminder ofhis now approved claim to a place alongside the forefathers of Athens.

Hadrian's position as an Eponymous Hero put him on a par notonly with the mythical figures of Athens, but also with the recenthistorical figures of Attalos and Ptolemy, mentioned by Pausanias(1.5.5). Pausanias continues with a further, brief, mention of Attalosand Ptolemy (1.6.1), followed by a history of Ptolemy (to 1.7.3), anda paragraph on Attalos (1.8.1). These are historical accounts, with norelevance to Athens other than the starting point of their beingEponymous Heroes; and these accounts include no buildings or objects.

However, the first line of this section is the most telling: 'The age ofAttalos and Ptolemy is so remote that the tradition of it has passedaway, and the writings of the historians whom the kings engaged torecord their deeds fell into neglect still sooner. For these reasons Ipropose to narrate their exploits' (1.6.1). The secondary interest hereis that Pausanias again reveals something of his working methods,with the suggestion that he regards his own writing of history as beingnecessary when there is no (or insufficient) extant history,94 showingan awareness of what could reasonably be expected of his readers.This alone shows his intention that his work should be read, and wasnot for private consumption. It is also curious that he should feel itnecessary to include an excursus on the history of a period in themonuments of which he shows little interest.

The point of primary interest in the present context is thatPausanias should feel the age of Ptolemy (made an Eponymous Heroin 224/3 BC) and Attalos (200 BC) 'SO remote that the tradition of it haspassed away' (see above, p. 39 n.108). This is inherently odd, giventhat (as the previous chapter shows) he was accustomed to thinkcarefully about, and to attempt, fine divisions between much earlierperiods. What is most striking here is that this should be written by aneducated native of Asia Minor, and probably a Lydian, a native of anarea which had been within the sphere of the Pergamene rulers. Hisstatement surely cannot have been literally true. It may, therefore, bethat we are dealing with the deliberate diminution of the significanceof that period, despite the obvious remains in Athens, such as the stoasof Attalos and Eumenes, and the Attalid dedications on the Akropolis.

93 Shear (1970) 203. 94 Habicht (1990) 572.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 171

Or perhaps not the diminution of the period as first target, but of theindividuals; this, in turn, would promote Hadrian. The process isnowhere made explicit, and there may have been no such consciousline of thought, but the effect fits neatly into Pausanias' promotion ofHadrian which is becoming clear from the discussion so far andwhich, I believe, becomes yet clearer.

A final point arises from Pausanias' description of the monument:he says that there was a tribe named after Hadrian 'in my day'. Thedate given by Thompson for the addition of Hadrian is 'about 125AD'.95 This would surely be before Pausanias started travelling inGreece, and even the latest possible date of AD I 38 is by no meanscertainly within the span of his travels. As Habicht has shown,however, the phrase is used by Pausanias to mean 'in my lifetime' (seeabove, p. 40 n .no) , and we can therefore deduce that the tribeexisted at least during those years in which the lifetimes of Hadrianand Pausanias overlapped. It would be most probable that the tribeof Hadrianis outlasted Hadrian's lifetime, but we cannot infer thisfrom Pausanias. However, as far as Pausanias is concerned, otheraspects of Hadrian's impact on Athens had certainly lasted beyondhis lifetime, and in all probability would continue to last beyondPausanias' own.

The passage in which Pausanias discusses the virtues of Hadrian,and his quelling of the revolt of the Hebrews ends with a furtherreference to his embellishment of Athens: 'the sanctuaries that heeither built or adorned with votive offerings and other fittings, andthe gifts that he bestowed on Greek cities and the barbarians whosought his bounty, are all recorded at Athens in the commonsanctuary of the gods' (1.5.5). The building referred to is thePantheon, also mentioned at 1.18.9, where it is said that Hadrianbuilt it. Its location is not clear, although the latter passage includesreferences to the Ilissos area and the library of Hadrian by the Agora.

More important than the location is its function: as well as acting asa Pantheon, Hadrian's building housed records of his own benefactions.Although it is not spelled out, the conclusion suggests itself that thePantheon was built at least partly for the purpose of displayingHadrian's benefactions. Nor is this simply an Athenian context, as allhis benefactions to Greek cities are recorded, as well as those to'barbarians'. The fact that the Pantheon housed mementoes of

95 Thompson (1976) 70.

172 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

Hadrian's activities over such a broad geographical span furtherconfirms Athens' position as the centre of the eastern policy ofHadrian, including no doubt the cities of the Panhellenion, but alsobarbarians and, presumably, Greek cities which did not belong to thePanhellenion.96

The core of Pausanias' description of Hadrianic Athens is1.18.6-9, where he guides the reader round 'the lower parts of thecity'. The opening is an unusually thorough mix of modern andancient: the sanctuary of Sarapis, 'a god whom the Athenians gotfrom Ptolemy' (1.18.4), which is interesting in view of the previousreference to Ptolemy's era as being forgotten; a place where Theseusand Peirithoos met before their expedition to Lakedaimon; and atemple of Eileithyia which featured wooden statues, one said to havebeen dedicated by Phaidra, the oldest brought by Erysichthon fromDelos.

The description continues to the sanctuary of Olympian Zeus,having already established a mood of sanctity, and above all ofantiquity - nothing is made of the reference to Theseus, but hisjuxtaposition with the works of Hadrian is again noteworthy. Thenote on the two oldest statues of Eileithyia is followed immediately(1.18.6) by two statues of Hadrian which stand before the sanctuaryof Olympian Zeus (characteristically, Pausanias says one is ofThasian stone, the other Egyptian).

The following passage is worth analysing in detail, beginning withthe cult statue:

it was Hadrian, the Roman emperor, who dedicated the temple and image ofOlympian Zeus. The image is worth seeing. It surpasses in size all otherimages except the Colossi at Rhodes and at Rome: it is made of ivory andgold and considering the size the workmanship is good.

This passage is typically Pausanian in approach, personal view, anduse of comparisons. And yet it is untypical in that it is applied to acontemporary work. It may strike the reader as odd that Pausaniasshould 'introduce' Hadrian here by referring to him as 'the Romanemperor' (although in a less elaborate manner than he uses tointroduce Augustus at 2.3.1; see above, p. 4). His readers can hardlyhave needed reminding of his identity, even though he has not beenmentioned since 1.5.5; this is, I suggest, more likely to be a Pausanian

96 Willers (1990) 61, stressing the political aspect of the Pantheon.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 173

way of emphasizing Hadrian's position and importance, to match themagnificence of the works to be described.97

The brief statement that Hadrian dedicated the temple is interestingfor what it does not say: the temple had been started in the sixthcentury BG and, although attempts had been made to finish it, hadremained unfinished until Hadrian's time. Although Pausanias latertalks of the old sanctuary of Olympian Zeus built by Deukalion, thatis separated from the present building, and no mention is made of anyhistorical predecessor. Undeniably, the credit should go to Hadrian,as indeed it does; but on the face of it, one might have expectedPausanias to make some reference to its long history, to Hadrian'sbringing to a successful and glorious conclusion a project which was, ifever anything was, a continuous link with the Classical past ofAthens. Conceivably, Pausanias was unaware of its long history, butthis would be very uncharacteristic for a man of his interests. It ismore likely that he did not want to distract attention from Hadrian; itis also possible that the association with the Peisistratids, the originalbuilders, might have been perceived as less than complimentary toHadrian (although Pausanias does make in passing a favourableremark concerning Peisistratos and Hippias at 1.23.1). Whatever thereason behind Pausanias missing a golden opportunity to detail thehistory of one of the most prominent buildings of contemporaryAthens, its effect is to focus sharply on Hadrian's personal role.98

Pausanias turns to the cult statue, saying that it is 'worth seeing', aphrase he uses frequently but here applied for the only time (as far as Ican tell) to a contemporary or near-contemporary work.99 This smallreference betrays a significant level of admiration in the attitude ofPausanias to Hadrian, and is in itself sufficient to mark him out fromother emperors.

The statue is of Zeus. The temple had, as far as we know, alwaysbeen intended to be dedicated to Zeus, and this must have been partof its appeal to Hadrian, who followed his predecessors in associatinghimself with Zeus, as we have seen with the statue of Zeus Eleutheriosjuxtaposed with that of Hadrian in the Agora (see above, p. 166). The97 It is just possible, but surely no more, that there was a potential confusion with Hadrian of

Tyre, a holder of the chair of rhetoric at Athens in his day (Philostr. VS 585-90; Jones(1972b) 480-7; Millar (1977) qi-'t).

98 The temple is also mentioned by Plutarch, who calls it unfinished (Solon 32.2).99 The case of the theatre at Sparta, a possible candidate because of extensive Augustan work,

can be excluded since Pausanias give no hint that he thought of it as in any sense Roman (seeabove, pp. 130-1).

174 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j

opportunity presented was fully taken by Hadrian, whose statue ofZeus was chryselephantine, by his day in itself an archaism, but mostclosely associated with the cult statues by Pheidias of the AthenaParthenos for the Parthenon, and the Zeus for Olympia (and it maybe recalled that Pausanias saw statues of Hadrian in both temples).The parallel with the latter is inescapable, although since the use ofchryselephantine statues of the Macedonian royal family in thePhilippeion (pointedly, in the Altis at Olympia), the exclusivity of themedium had ceased, and with it (it may be assumed) its hithertoinherent aura of sanctity.

By reviving the use of a chryselephantine cult statue, Hadrian wasdeliberately striking a pose, calling attention to the temple, andthereby to himself, and using archaism as a means of strengtheningthis connection. And, crucially, he returned to the Pheidian scale:Pausanias comments fulsomely on its size, comparison with thebest-known Colossi - presumably based on his own observations -showing that it surpassed even the Pheidian statues in that respect.Such a scale was appropriate for what was, although Pausanias doesnot say so, the largest of all Zeus temples. The technique of workingwith gold and ivory on this scale must have needed to be learnedafresh, so that Pausanias' final comment, that the statue was of goodworkmanship 'considering the size', is in fact less grudging than itmay at first appear.

Pausanias continues: 'before the columns stand bronze statueswhich the Athenians call the 'Colonies' (apoikoi poleis). The wholeenclosure is just four furlongs round about, and is full of statues; forevery city set up a statue of the emperor Hadrian, but the Athenianssurpassed them all by erecting the notable Colossus behind thetemple' (1.18.6).

The standard interpretation of these 'Colonies' as personificationsof the cities which dedicated them has been challenged by Benjaminand Willers, for whom they are statues of Hadrian.100 Benjamin seesthem as dedicated by the colonies, supporting this with the observationthat many dedications are known to be from the colonies. She furtherpoints out that Pausanias' phrase apoikoi poleis is exactly that found intwo late inscriptions to refer to cities which were members of thePanhellenion because they had been colonized by Greeks. While thisis an apt conclusion, it should not preclude the presence of cities notknown to be members of the Panhellenion among those making100 Benjamin (1963) 58-9; Willers (1990) 52, the latter answered by Spawforth (1992) 374, and

Boatwright (1994) 429-30.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 175

dedications. For Willers, they are dedicated by the member-states ofthe Panhellenion.

It is most probable, and most fitting Pausanias' phraseology, thatthe statues should be called 'Colonies' because they were personificationsof colonies. In that case, they should represent Athenian colonies. Thelink with the Panhellenion is not explicit, but is unmistakable in thecontext of the contemporaneous foundation of the Panhellenion andthe dedication of the Olympieion. And as the Panhellenion embracedmany cities but was centred on Athens, so the 'Colonies' would mostappropriately be statues of colonies emanating from Athens.

These statues of the 'Colonies' would join the set of statues ofHadrian situated around the peribolos of the temenos. Pausanias saysthat these latter statues were set up by 'every city', and he explicitlydistinguishes the Athenians by saying that they outdid other cities bysetting up a Colossus behind the temple. A possible interpretation of'every city' is that these are the cities of the Panhellenion, which wasformally founded in AD 131/2, the year in which the temple ofOlympian Zeus was dedicated. It is surely stretching credibility not toassociate the two events. Benjamin points out that epithets used onthe numerous surviving altars to Hadrian imply a link between theOlympieion and the Panhellenion.101 As she says, the sanctuarieswere separate at the time of Pausanias (citing Cassius Dio 69.16.2,who writes of a sekos of the emperor Hadrian, significantly called thePanhellenion); but they cannot have been distinct in purpose. ThePanhellenion is not referred to by Pausanias, although his mention ofthe temple of Hera Panhellenia and Zeus Panhellenios (1.18.9,discussed in the following paragraphs) may be taken as a specificreference. At the very least, the use of the epithet 'Panhellenios'emphasizes Hadrian's Panhellenic programme. So too does Hadrian'suse of'Olympios' which, as noted (see above, p. 162), was his mostcommon epithet since, in Benjamin's words, 'Zeus Olympios, chiefdeity of the Greek peoples, is truly the Panhellenic god'.102

Pausanias continues by listing some of the antiquities (archaid) inthe precinct (hieron, 1.18.6; peribolos twice, 1.18.6—7), including abronze Zeus, a temple of Kronos and Rhea, and a precinct (temenos) ofOlympian Earth. The presence of antiquities could only strengthenthe sanctity of the place; the appearance of Kronos and Rhea, fatherand mother of the Gods (including Zeus) has the same effect; and thepresence of Gaia may have recalled specifically her role at Delphi

101 Benjamin (1963) 59. 102 Benjamin (1963) 59.

176 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

(10.5.5-6) and at Olympia (5.14.10). To this is added the swallow-holefor the flood of Deukalion, the builder of the original temple andthereby Hadrian's predecessor, whose grave was pointed out toPausanias.

The topography of this area is controversial; but it is at least clearthat the above-mentioned buildings are in the same area, even if theirexact disposition is unclear. Whether or not the temple of Hera andZeus Panhellenios should be placed in this area is not at all certain;103

the other candidate is the partially excavated building on modernOdos Adrianou (appropriately), which has also been identified as thePantheon — the 'sanctuary common to all the gods' that Pausaniasmentions — or as the meeting place of the Panhellenion.104

Pausanias' reference to the temple of Hera Panhellenia and ZeusPanhellenios (1.18.9) is, if it can be taken thus, the only reference ofhis which can be connected with the Panhellenion as an institution,however obliquely. It is possible that this is a cult building constructedfor the institution of the Panhellenion, but such an inference is notjustifiable on the strength of Pausanias' text alone. Linked geographi-cally in Pausanias' account is the 'sanctuary common to all the gods',the Pantheon. The Odos Adrianou building is certainly a candidatefor this, although its identification as the meeting-place of thePanhellenes has been strongly argued. What is clear is that theensuing reference, to Hadrian's library and its vicinity, indicates thatPausanias has moved from the Ilissos area to the area of the RomanAgora and its surroundings. Whether the temple of Hera and Zeusand the Pantheon are to be associated with the former area or thelatter is simply not clear from Pausanias' terminology.

The temple of Hera and Zeus and the 'sanctuary common to all thegods' are said by Pausanias to have been 'built' by Hadrian, and thelibrary also by association, whereas he says of the temple of OlympianZeus that it was 'dedicated' by Hadrian. Wycherley has takenPausanias' report that Hadrian 'dedicated' the temple to corroborateliterary evidence that it was unfinished before Hadrian's time.105 Theliterary sources, particularly Vitruvius (3.2.8), leave no room fordoubt that its Augustan state was not its final Hadrianic state, and theplan by the unnamed kings to honour Augustus with its completion isfurther supporting evidence. However, Wycherley perhaps puts

103 F o r t h e s o u r c e s , a n d t h e o r i e s o n l o c a t i o n , T r a v l o s ( 1 9 7 1 ) 2 9 1 - 2 , n o . 1 6 2 o n b o t h p l a n s ;Spawforth and Walker (1985) 94; Willers (1990) 62-7.

104 Travlos (1971) 282 'F'; Spawforth and Walker (1985) 97-8; Willers (1990) 18-19.105 Wycherley (1963) 166.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 177

excessive weight on Pausanias here, since Strabo, who also refers to itbeing unfinished, says that Antiochos dedicated it in that condition(9.1.17). This complicates the question of Hadrian's dedication,raising the possibility that he re-dedicated what may have beeneffectively a rebuilt temple. This leaves an open question the extent ofthe operation required for the temple to be completed by Hadrian.

Wycherley concludes that 'one is tempted to deduce . . . thatHadrian found the main structure of columns and walls complete'. Itis in fact unclear when the temple had been converted to theCorinthian order, but it was certainly no later than the time ofCossutius in the second century BG (see above, p. 126). Thus, whileThompson is right to see the completion of the Olympieion byHadrian as 'a splendid gesture in deference to the local architecturaltradition',106 this 'deference' has two aspects: that of Cossutius inbuilding in the local tradition, and that of Hadrian in deciding tocomplete the temple rather than commission yet another new building.

The description of the library of Hadrian is unusually detailed for acontemporary building, albeit not objectively an extensive description:'here, too, is a building adorned with a gilded roof and alabaster, andalso with statues and paintings: books are stored in it' (1.18.9).107

More significant than its function is the style: Thompson calls it 'anexotic monument, an import from imperial Rome', and notes that itwas 'an "arts centre" of a sophisticated kind and on a scale previouslyundreamt of in Greece', and goes on to say that it was 'a somewhatimproved version of the Templum Pacis in Rome . . . An architect inall probability came over from Rome'.108 In the same way, he sees thearea of the library and Agora of Caesar and Augustus as 'looking forall the world like the Imperial Fora in Rome' (quoted above, p. 122).

In the same paragraph, Pausanias refers to 'a gymnasium namedafter Hadrian; it, too, has one hundred columns from the quarries ofLibya'. We should surely infer that Hadrian personally was responsiblefor the construction of the gymnasium, given that ownership ofquarries was in the hands of the emperor (for a possible exception, seebelow, pp. 196—7), and that the gymnasium was named after him, aswas the stoa at Hyampolis in Phokis which Pausanias explicitly saysHadrian built (oikodomesato, 10.35.6). Add to these buildings the106 Thompson (1987) 10.107 Here, as elsewhere, I use 'library' as a conventional designation for this building, since

Pausanias says only that in his day books were stored in the building, not that it was built as alibrary or had been used as one in Hadrian's day. The base for the statues that Pausaniasmentions, known also from an inscription, has recently been excavated (AR 1992-3, 7).

108 Thompson (1987) 10; he goes on to describe the building technique employed.

178 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

unprecedented form of the arch of Hadrian (to be discussed shortly),and above all the Olympieion itself, and there is an immediate andunmistakably novel impact on the physical appearance of Athensmade by Hadrian.

Perhaps a little curiously, Pausanias returns to the area of theOlympieion (1.19.1), to mention an image (agalma) of PythianApollo and the sanctuary (hieron) of Delphinian Apollo. The latter isof interest because it was visited by Theseus when he was 'a strangeras yet to every one5. As Wycherley observes, 'the Delphinion morethan any other monument illustrated the immemorial sanctity of thesite'; and he adds that at 1.28.10, Pausanias 'reverts to the Delphinionin his list of Athenian law courts appended to the Areopagus and saysthat Theseus was tried there for justifiable homicide'.109 Again theimportance of Theseus to Athens is manifest and, while no connectionis made between Hadrian and Theseus, the two are juxtaposed bythe physical location of buildings associated with them as they havebeen before, and as they will be again (see above, p. 172; below,p. 180). There may be a further parallel here: Theseus is said to havefound the Delphinion 'finished all but the roof (1.19.1); if Wycherleyis right that Hadrian found the Olympieion finished to 'columns andwalls', the states of the two temples would have been similar.

With this, Pausanias' account of Hadrianic Athens ends, and therearises one of those occasional mysteries that can infuriate Pausanias'modern reader (whether or not they had an effect on his contempora-ries). This is his omission of the arch of Hadrian, hardly aninconspicuous monument, and one which he must have seen, alongwith its inscriptions.110 One could explain this by calling on thetraditional belief that Pausanias was scornful of anything modern,but the thrust of this study suggests that this is an unjustifiablesimplification, and particularly inappropriate in this instance sincehe does in fact mention a good number of contemporary buildings,above all Hadrianic. The explanation may perhaps be found elsewhere.

The arch was put up in Hadrian's honour, rather than by Hadrianhimself (not an artificial distinction, as has often been seen in thisstudy). Alison Adams believes that the demos was responsible for theerection of the arch;111 Willers sees the donor as the Panhellenionbecause of its known donation of two replica arches at Eleusis,109 Wycherley (1963) 167.110 Bibliography on the arch includes Willers (1990) 72-85; Adams (1989); Travlos (1971) 253.111 Adams (1989) 15

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 179

although this seems improbable on chronological grounds.112 Unfor-tunately, insufficient evidence exists to resolve the question, so that itis best left to one side at present.

Hadrian's arch is, as Adams observes, 'a Roman honorary arch of atype found in the eastern part of the empire',113 and it would thereforehave been conspicuous in Athens, at least to an Athenian. However, anative of Asia Minor like Pausanias, familiar with the genre, wouldhave been less struck by it, and thus less inclined to mention it in hisaccount of the city. This reasoning has already been adduced inconnection with his omission of the nymphaion at Olympia and thecolonnaded street at Athens (see above, pp. 41-2), and otherexamples are cited below.

Whatever Hadrian's personal role in the design and erection of thearch - and the standard pattern of petition and response suggests thatthis would have been minimal - the use of an eastern form admirablysuits Hadrian's interest in the eastern provinces and his desire to placeAthens at the heart of the area. Indeed, to have the Ilissos area as theheart of that heart. Travlos notes that the orientation of the arch is 'onthe line of an extremely ancient road which led from the Olympieionprecinct', an interesting reversion to as distant a world as possible ifdeliberate. Indeed, Travlos observes that the line of the Themistokleanwall is avoided, and that of a much older road followed.114 Thissuggests a conscious separation of the line of the Athens of Hadrianfrom the earlier, and still conspicuous, one; and, if Hadrian weredeliberately following the ancient road, a purposeful association witha very early phase of Athens' existence.

The orientation of the arch is important, since its role as aboundary marker was made explicit by its inscriptions, one on eachside, as follows:115

West: Ai'S' eicr' AOfjvai Orjcrecos f\ TTpiv TTOAISEast: A18' eicr' A5piocvou KOC! ouxi Or)<j£<x>s

The inscriptions are usually translated as follows:

West: This is Athens the ancient city of TheseusEast: This is the city of Hadrian and not of Theseus

112 Willers (1990) 93-6, answered by Spawforth (1992) 374, and Boatwright (1994) 428-9; onthe same grounds, the date of 131 /2 proposed by Travlos (1971) 253, is also improbable. Seealso Spawforth and Walker (1985) 93, 102. n 3 Adams (1989) 10.

114 Travlos (1971) 253; Spawforth and Walker (1985) 93, concur with him on the orientation ofthe arch. l15 IG iii 401 (West) and IG iii 402 (East).

180 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

These inscriptions clearly provide further evidence of the associationof Hadrian with Theseus, and of Hadrian as second founder; the eastinscription indicates that there were effectively two complementarycities, a Thesean and a Hadrianic.116 However, Adams has offered adifferent translation of the inscription on the west: 'This is Athens theformer city of Theseus', taking the inscription to mean that theHadrianic city was effectively a replacement of the Thesean.117

The question these translations raise is, then, whether the inscriptionmeans that Hadrian replaced Theseus' city, or created a parallel city.The latter is the implication of the passage of the Historia Augustawhich refers to Hadrian's giving the name Hadrianopolis 'to manycities, as, for example, Carthage and a part of Athens' [HA Hadr.20.4-5). There is a deliberate distinction here between the whole ofCarthage and a part of Athens. There is no suggestion of thereplacement of an existing city. Perhaps this is too subtle anapproach to a document like the Historia Augusta, which is giving anoverall view of a wide span of imperial activities, but either oneaccepts the literal interpretation, or one follows Adams' view that the'archaeological evidence is slight for the baths and villas believed tohave filled a Hadrianic quarter', and that therefore 'it seemsimpossible at present to reconcile the evidence cited above with thestatement made in the Life of Hadrian that a part of Athens wasnamed after the emperor'.118

In this latter point, Adams and Wycherley converge, Wycherleyobserving that the implication of the inscription of a transitional pointbetween the city of Theseus and that of Hadrian was 'somewhat ineptand misleading'. But his reasons for this conclusion differ markedlyfrom Adams': he cites the continuing presence in the supposedHadrianic quarter of long-established cults and buildings, saying that'the region beyond the arch was highly venerable, sanctified by manyold legends and cults and associated in particular with Theseus andhis founding, as Pausanias well knew'.

The preceding discussion has, I think, borne out the truth of thisconclusion, and it can be brought to bear on the question ofPausanias' omitting the arch. For Pausanias, buildings such as baths116 E.g. Travlos (1971) 253. Wycherley (1963) 163.117 Adams (1989) 11, citing an unpublished paper by C.P. Jones in which he takes the

argument a step further, saying that the inscription refers to the replacement of Theseus byHadrian as the city's founder. Day translated the west inscription 'This is the Athens ofTheseus, the former city', but discussed the matter no further (Day (1942) 187).

118 Adams (1989) 12.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 181

and villas would have been of minimal interest,119 and this area'santiquity and sanctity (the two closely associated, if not indivisible)could not be overcome even by an emperor of the status of Hadrian. Ifonly on the principle of joining what one cannot beat, the next bestpolicy was association with the antiquity and sanctity of the area, andthe more antique (and consequently more sanctified) the better. Herethe link with Theseus is perfect, and Wycherley's phrasing impliesthat he feels the association with Theseus somehow excludes Hadrian.I would argue that, on the contrary, it is to Hadrian's advantage, andconsciously pursued by him. Theseus has been a recurrent thread inthis study of Hadrian, not least due to Pausanias' own references, andHadrian was able to give the Ilissos area an overlay of his owninfluence. I would, therefore, conclude that we should see Hadrian asthe most recent founder of Athens, complementary to, but notreplacing, the first founder, Theseus.

That a parallel was intended to be drawn between Hadrian andTheseus is, I believe, clear from evidence already adduced. Theparallel suggests itself on several occasions in Plutarch, notably thefounding of games by Theseus in the form of the Panathenaia, laterclosely linked with Hadrian (see above, p. 165). To this must beadded the well-known reference Plutarch gives (Thes. 25.3) toTheseus setting up a pillar on the Isthmus as a territorial marker, andbearing the inscriptions 'Here is not the Peloponnese, but Ionia', and'Here is the Peloponnese, not Ionia'. The form of inscription is surelytoo close for its recollection on the arch not to have been deliberate;that the story was current not long before, if not actually during,Hadrian's reign is shown by the reference in Plutarch.120

There is, however, one small (perhaps coincidental) differencewhich separates Hadrian from Theseus: the context of Theseus'setting up the marker, according to Plutarch, was his addition of theterritory of Megara to Attica as part of his domain. It happens (andprobably no more than happens) that Pausanias explicitly distancesMegara from the rest of Hadrianic Greece, in the famous saying thatthe Megarians 'were the only people whom even the emperorHadrian could not make to thrive' (1.36.3). This latter reference is

119 There is an occasional mention of baths (e.g. those of Eurykles, or those attributed toTrajan; see above, pp. 42, i n ) , but there are many cases where he omits them (e.g. above,p. i n ) ; he mentions no villas.

120 Spawforth and Walker (1985) 93, see the analogy as 'surely intentional'. It is noted byAdams (1989) 10, but the possible analogous intent is not addressed.

182 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j

perhaps slightly puzzling in view of i .40.2, where Pausanias mentionsa water basin built by Theagenes, the seventh-century tyrant, andsays 'not far from this water basin is an ancient sanctuary: at thepresent day statues of Roman emperors stand in it'. The use ofancient sanctuaries to house statues of Romans is readily paralleled(the Marmaria, and the Metroon at Olympia, spring to mind), butit is odd to find statues of Roman emperors (albeit anonymous ones)in a place where even Hadrian could not produce a resurgence,despite his attempts (1.42.5, 1.44.6, below; this may, however,explain why the statues are anonymous). It may be that the badrelations between Athens and Megara (e.g. Philostr. VS 528-30,latterly indicating some reconciliation) contributed to Pausanias'comment, especially if he were influenced in his understanding ofrecent history by an Athenian source, as was most likely the casegiven the marked Athenocentricity of the world he was brought up in.

The parallel between Hadrian and Theseus is again evident at theend of Pausanias' first book, where he talks of the Megara - Corinthroad: 'the road which is still named after Skiron was first, they say,made passable for foot passengers by Skiron when he was warminister of Megara; but the emperor Hadrian made it so wide andconvenient that even chariots could meet on it' (1.44.6).121 Themention of Skiron would undoubtedly bring to the mind of anyeducated reader of Pausanias' work the fight between Skiron andTheseus which resulted in making the road passable, much asHadrian's acts did, albeit by different means. This passage isparticularly important because the parallel is unmistakable and yetnot made explicit, indicating that we as readers are entitled to readsubtleties into Pausanias' narrative, to put ourselves in the position ofthose he was aiming at, educated contemporaries and subsequenttravellers. Of course, the history and passability of roads would be ofparticular interest to the latter class of reader, and it is to beremembered that Hadrian's arch was on the line of an ancient road.

It is against this background that the question of Pausanias' failureto mention the Hadrianic quarter referred to in the Historia Augustamay be considered further. There is ostensibly much to be said forIsaac's view that 'Pausanias is a contemporary source, and his silenceregarding Hadrian's "New Athens" is decisive',122 although it is, asoften, over-burdening an argument ex silentio to call it 'decisive'.However, this is palpably untrue of the arch, which Pausanias also121 A milestone of AD 125 probably marks this widened road (Zahrnt (1979) 112).122 Isaac (1992) 357, noting that Cassius Dio also fails to mention the Hadrianic quarter.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 183

omits but which certainly exists. Further, apart from the arch, andthe supposed Hadrianic quarter, there are other known Hadrianicbuildings in Athens which Pausanias does not mention. Hadrian'smodification of the theatre of Dionysos (see above, p. 163) may haveincluded the addition of the high relief decoration of the stagebuilding. While this was a striking novelty in Athens, it has antecedentsin Ephesos and Pergamon,123 and it may be that it would have hadgreater familiarity to Pausanias than to the Athenians. If so, he wouldhave had less incentive to mention it. The same may account for hisomitting the aqueduct begun by Hadrian and completed in AD 140,after his death; although this architectural form was unprecedentedin Athens, it had precedents in Asia Minor.124 Pausanias also omitsthe basilica which is probably of the early Hadrianic period.125 Theform was familiar in both Asia Minor and Greece, notably at Corinth,where there were three by Pausanias' day, none of which hementions.126 I would conclude, therefore, that we should not takePausanias' silence on the Hadrianic quarter as indicative of itsnon-existence.

Hadrian and the rest of Greece

A further reference to Hadrian in book one should also be noted: stillat Megara, Pausanias says 'the old (archaios) temple of Apollo was ofbrick {plinthos), but afterwards the emperor Hadrian built it of whitemarble (lithos leukos)' (1.42.5). As has been noted on several occasions,restoration of ancient or crumbling temples had been standardpractice among the Romans since Augustus' day; but in this case, thephrasing is unusually reminiscent of Augustus' famous boast that hehad found Rome a city of 'later' and left it a city of 'marmor'(Suetonius, Aug. 28.3). Both 'later' and plinthos suggest sun-driedbrick (LSJ also give 'fired brick' for plinthos), and both lithos and lithosleukos can translate 'marmor' (see above, p. 51 nn.21-2). Whetherthere is a deliberate reminiscence of Suetonius' phrase in Pausaniascannot be claimed with certainty, but the parallel is nonethelessthere, and serves to indicate the parallel benefactions under Augustusand Hadrian. There is a gentle (and doubtless unintended) irony inthese references to Hadrian's benefactions at Megara, since theMegarians were the one people who had not prospered through his123 Sturgeon (1977) esp. 45-8; she also raises the possibility that the stage building was

remodelled under Antoninus Pius rather than Hadrian. 124 Vermeule (1968) 268.125 Shear (1973) 136-8. 126 Ward-Perkins (1981) 258-9, 479 n.6.

184 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece 3

efforts (1.36.3). Mention of this temple, therefore, unfortunatelyserves as a reminder of the ineffectiveness of Hadrian's embellishmentof Megara in this respect.

Pausanias then turns to Hadrian's activities in other parts ofGreece. The first are the bath at Corinth and the aqueduct fromStymphalos (2.3.5), the tatter also mentioned in the description ofStymphalos (8.22.3). I n itself this is interesting as an example of acontemporary civic building (it was noted above that Hadrian'slibrary, another civic building, was the first mentioned by Pausaniasthat was in the full sense built by Hadrian). The aqueduct is a piece ofengineering which Pausanias presumably felt was sufficiently impressiveto mention, and one might also add his reference to the roadsteadbuilt at Lupiae near Brundisium by Hadrian (6.19.9).

The greater interest in this passage lies in the contrast betweenHadrian's aqueduct from Stymphalos being mentioned twice whilehis aqueduct at Athens is not mentioned at all. Given that otherconspicuous Hadrianic buildings in Athens were also omitted - thebasilica and arch most notably — it may be safest to assume that thecontext is the deciding factor here; in other words, that the aqueductwas a greater feature of Corinth than it was of Athens, and that it wastherefore worthy of mention. Certainly, Hadrian's involvement inCorinth was considerably less than it was in Athens (as it was in allcities). It was, however, in Hadrian's time that the cult of Roma wasinstituted at Corinth (see above, p. 108), belatedly bringing it intoline in this respect with cities such as Athens.

Hadrian's building programme in Greece was very extensive, andits exact boundaries often obscure through uncertainties of dating.However, as a representative example of a Hadrianic building whichPausanias omits may be cited his transformation of part of theAsklepieion at Argos into a bathhouse.127

Apart from buildings, Hadrian's presence was everywhere visiblein the form of the statues of him: I have already noted his statue in theParthenon, the cuirassed statue of him from the Agora, the inferredstatue of Hadrian as Eponymous Hero, two statues of him in front ofthe Olympieion, and at least one set in the temenos of the Olympieion,and perhaps another set if the 'Colonies' are indeed statues ofHadrian dedicated by the colonies. To these may be added one in theAgora of the Kynaithians (8.19.1), and one in the temple of Zeus at

127 Aupert (1987) esp. 514-5.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 185

Olympia (5.12.6). The latter, by implication in the pronaos althoughthe cella itself is a possibility, 'is of Parian marble and was dedicatedby the cities of the Achaean confederacy'; by it stood one of Trajan'dedicated by the Greek nation' (also, see above, p. 157). Thesestatues (andriantes) are just two of several of Romans at Olympia: oneof Augustus has been noted (5.12.7), and there were 'statues(andriantes) of Roman emperors' in the Metroon (5.20.9), but none isidentified. Neither the literary sources (including Pausanias) nor thearchaeological sources associate Hadrian closely with Olympia,perhaps because of his interest in Delphi, a place he is said to havethought of as being of'antiquity and nobility'.128

There is no justification for assuming that Hadrian himself put upany of these statues, and in the case of those (whether one set or two)at the Olympieion, and that at Olympia, we are told explicitly thatthese were dedicated by others in his honour. We have, in fact, onlyone reference in Pausanias to a dedication by Hadrian, to that of 'apeacock of gold and shining stones dedicated by the emperorHadrian' in the Argive Heraion, alongside which was a golden crownand purple robe dedicated by Nero (2.17.6).

The theme of restoration has appeared in this study in severaldifferent guises, mainly in terms of buildings, but also with referenceto games, festivals, cults and political systems and even, in the case ofCorinth, the restoration of the city itself. In Pausanias' account ofHadrian's activities in Greece, his restoration is nowhere clearer thanin his treatment of Mantinea: as noted (see above, p. 132), Mantineahad been favoured by Augustus since it alone of the Arkadian citiessided with him at Actium. Hadrian's way of favouring Mantinea wasa particularly conspicuous one: 'the emperor Hadrian took from theMantineans the name they had borrowed from Macedonia, andrestored to the city its old name of Mantinea' (8.8.12). The reversionto the past is a theme which in a sense is the central one of Hadrian'spolicy, and is at its most obvious with such changes. This event isdated by Pausanias 'ten generations later' than the time of AntigonosDoson (8.8.11), namely c.263-221 BG (with a parenthetic reference toActium), thus enhancing the notion of Hadrian making an impact ona long-established practice.

The same idea of enhancing antiquity is further illustrated atMantinea by Hadrian's building a sanctuary of Poseidon Hippios

128 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 108.

186 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j

(the principal deity of Mantinea) round the ruins of an ancient(archaios) one (8.10.2):129

this sanctuary I, like all who have made mention of it, can only describe fromhearsay. The present sanctuary was built by the emperor Hadrian. He setoverseers over the workmen that no man might look into the ancientsanctuary, and that none of its ruins might be removed, and he commandedthem to build a wall round the new temple. This sanctuary of Poseidon issaid to have been originally built by Agamedes and Trophonios out of oaklogs which they fashioned and fitted together.

The passage exudes concern for antiquities, of a kind which wouldappeal strongly to Pausanias, and which would endear Hadrian tohim, as well as provide him with a sharp point of contrast with some ofhis predecessors. It may be argued that this is a case of chickens andeggs, and that his belief that concern was shown arises from hispreconceptions about Hadrian. But the event is recent in thememory, and he, like all visitors, must have gone by what he was toldsince he was not allowed into the sanctuary itself. The final sentencejuxtaposes Hadrian with two of the most ancient artists, Trophoniosand Agamedes, most renowned for the fourth temple of Apollo atDelphi (10.5.13; see above, p. 41). The building as it existed inPausanias' day was, therefore, a combination of the efforts ofTrophonios, Agamedes and Hadrian, an association from whichHadrian could only have benefited in the eyes of antiquarians likePausanias, and, no doubt, those of contemporary Mantineans.

The same method of combining antiquity and modernity isapparent also on the grave of Epaminondas at Mantinea: 'on thetomb are two slabs: one of them is old, and has a Boiotian inscription;the other was set up by the emperor Hadrian, who composed theinscription on it'.

But there was more than antiquity to Hadrian's policy in respect ofMantinea: it was here that he established the worship of Antinoos inwhat Pausanias calls 'the newest' temple at Mantinea (8.9.7-8).Pausanias' phrasing makes it quite clear that the establishment of thecult of Antinoos was Hadrian's personal initiative and, although hedoes not explicitly attribute the building of the temple to Hadrian,nor even to the Hadrianic period, both are strongly implicit in hiswords. And unless the temple of Antinoos is a re-used one — most

129 Frazer iv.216—17 on the comparison with Polybios' location of the sanctuary.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 187

improbable for 'the newest' temple — it must date from soon after hisdeath. Pausanias mentions mysteries and games in Antinoos' honour,again without specifically attributing their introduction to Hadrian.In this case also, it is hard not to see this as a contemporaryinnovation, part of a threefold package of cult (with temple),mysteries and games, introduced at the personal instigation of Hadrian.

Pausanias also says that in the gymnasium at Mantinea there wereagalmata (an unspecific plural) of Antinoos; these will surely havebeen of Hadrianic date, although again this is not made explicit.Pausanias does not offer a date for the gymnasium itself, nor suggestany association with Hadrian. This building is 'worth seeing', not forthe statues of Antinoos it contained, but for 'the stones with which it isadorned'. Lastly, although Pausanias does not mention it, aninscription from Mantinea reveals that a stoa was built there byEurykles in honour of Antinoos.130 Despite this last omission, thisunusually extensive coverage of contemporary buildings by Pausaniasspeaks in favour of his 'special relationship' with Hadrian (perhaps allthe more so in the latter case, since the stoa was not itself built byHadrian although linked with him by association with Antinoos).

This group of Hadrianic foundations at Mantinea is revealing ofboth the emperor's policy and Pausanias' narrative method. Thefoundation of mysteries is compatible with Hadrian's particularattachment to the Eleusinian Mysteries, which he attended moreoften than any other emperor (see above, p. 164), once in thecompany of Antinoos; and the interest in founding (or re-founding)games has been remarked on as a frequent instrument of imperialpolicy, employed on several occasions by Hadrian. This passagecomes at the end of a list of sanctuaries built by the Mantineans,including one they built to commemorate Actium (cf. 8.46.1).

It is not surprising that the temple of Antinoos should be 'thenewest at Mantinea' in Pausanias' day, and it is certainly one of themost recent buildings he discusses. There is no long-standing cultinterest for Pausanias, no sacred spot on which it was built whichwould arouse his curiosity, and no decorative importance to thetemple (in contrast to the gymnasium). The fact that he mentions thetemple at all is, therefore, striking, and should be taken as a furtherindication of his particular interest in Hadrian. It may be this that

130 Sherk (1988) no. 149C = SIG3 841; Frazenv.213. On the Hadrianic Eurykles, see below, p. 193.

188 Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j

prompts Pausanias to continue with an explanation of why Antinoosis honoured at Mantinea, explaining that Antinoos was of Bithynianorigin and that the Bithynians were of Mantinean stock. Here, as sooften, the local element comes to the fore in Pausanias' narrative;furthermore, a common origin between the Bithynians and theArkadians of Asia Minor may have stimulated Pausanias5 interest.131

This is another aspect of his sense of appropriateness, causing him tomention Antinoos here for the first time, despite the many earlierreferences to Hadrian.

The mingling just noted of ancient and modern in Hadrian's worksis again evident in the final reference in Pausanias to Hadrian, whichis near the end of the final book, in Phokis. At Abai, we are told, therewas a temple to Apollo built by Hadrian:132 the town had been sacredto Apollo 'from old' (ek palaiou), and possessed an oracle of Apollo,'but the god did not receive the same respectful treatment from thePersians as from the Romans. For whereas the Romans, out ofreverence for Apollo, allowed the Abaians to retain their independence,the army of Xerxes burned down the very sanctuary at Abai'(10.35.1-2).

Of the temple built by Hadrian (epoiese rather than anethekeindicating Hadrian's personal involvement in the construction),Pausanias says that it is smaller than 'the great' temple - perhapsconspicuous modesty on the emperor's part - and that 'the images areolder, and were dedicated by the Abaians themselves . . .' (10.35.4).So again, there is a combination of the ancient and the modern, withHadrian's building housing ancient works.

The other modern building in the vicinity is the stoa at Hyampolis,which was, as Pausanias specifically tells us, built and dedicated by,and named after, Hadrian (10.35.6).

ANTONINUS PIUS

Pausanias in all probability spent half or more of his working lifeunder the reign of Antoninus Pius, and praises him fulsomely (8.43),saying that he was 'called Pius because he was known to be mostdevout. In my judgement, the title borne by the elder Cyrus mightwell be applied to him - the Father of Mankind'. The use of the past131 Robert (1980) 135-8, with particular reference to links between Arkadia, Pergamon and

Aizanoi.132 On Hadrian's possible personal role in the building of the temple, Zahrnt (1979) 103.

Nero to Marcus Aurelius 189

tense marks the passage as post-161. The context is the expansion ofPallanteion in Arkadia under Antoninus, and his granting it 'freedomand immunity from taxes'.

In detailing Antoninus' actions, Pausanias says that he 'nevervoluntarily involved the Romans in war', but stresses that he was agood leader when required - as perhaps on the occasion of therebellion in the province of Achaia, known only through a passingmention in a much later source {HA Ant. 5.5). This same passagecontains one more point of interest, in noting a law introduced byAntoninus Pius whereby provincials who were Roman citizens, butwhose children were Greeks, were allowed to pass their property totheir children, where previously they had been obliged to pass iteither to strangers or 'to swell the emperor's wealth'. This clearly metwith Pausanias' approval, and may even have been of particularpersonal interest to him.133

As noted (see above, p. 41), at 2.27.6-7 Pausanias refers to thebuildings erected by the Roman senator Antoninus in the sanctuaryof Asklepios at Epidauros. There is no comment on the buildings, justa brief statement of their existence. This passage has aroused mostinterest because of the possibility that the senator referred to is thefuture emperor Antoninus Pius. However, that theory is no longersustainable.134 For present purposes, the relevant point is that this is amodern dedication, and thus a further proof that Pausanias' interestwas not confined to matters ancient. It should be noted that two of thebuildings referred to are religious, and one civic. Pausanias also tellsus that Antoninus rebuilt 'the Lycian and Carian cities, also Kos andRhodes', and notes his buildings in Greece, Ionia, Carthage andSyria, but gives no further details since 'they have been very exactlyrecorded by other writers' (8.43.4).

MARCUS AURELIUS

The only mention of Marcus Aurelius is at 8.43.6, where Pausaniassays that Antoninus Pius 'bequeathed the throne to a son of the samename, Antoninus the Second, who inflicted punishment on theGermans, the most numerous and warlike barbarians in Europe, andon the Sarmatian nation, both of whom had wantonly broken the133 Frazer iv.410-11.134 On the identity of Antoninus, see below, p. 194; Pollitt assumes that the emperor is meant

(Pollitt (1983) 181).

i go Pausanias on the rulers of Roman Greece j

peace'.135 His activities in Greece were limited, and included interestin Eleusis, manifest not only in the Greater Propylaia at the sanctuary(omitted by Pausanias, like most things Eleusinian),136 but alsobecoming involved in decisions on Eleusinian priesthoods.137 In anycase, his activities would have been at the very end of Pausanias'period of travelling in Greece, and we should not be surprised at thecomplete lack of references to his buildings.

The 'Sarmatian nation' Pausanias refers to at 8.43.6 are latercharacterized as 'the robber horde of the Kostoboks, who overranGreece in my time' (10.34.5). By reference to an Olympic winner,Mnesiboulos, this incursion is datable to after AD 161. No other writermentions this attack on Greece, but further evidence for it comes frominscriptions.138 Although Pausanias' reference to the Sarmatiansarises from his praise of Marcus Aurelius, he had a wider interest inthem: his knowledge of the materials of which their military equipmentis made has been noted (see above, p. 52, with reference to 1.21.5) andsuggests that he had had autopsy of such weapons. In the samepassage he says that 'the Sarmatians neither dig nor import iron,being the most isolated of all the barbarous peoples in these regions'.It may be, therefore, that his reference to Marcus' suppression of theirincursion arises more from his curiosity about the Sarmatians thanfrom his tactfully fulsome enthusiasm for the emperor.135 Habicht (1985) 10, 18, on identity; Frazer iv.411 on the argument for and against a

chronological indication in this passage of AD I 76; it seems best not to take it that way.136 Travlos (1988) 97-8. 137 Millar (1977) 450.138 See von Premerstein (1912) esp. 145-64; an inscription from Eleusis, referring to an

incursion of the Sauromati in the time of Antoninus, is best taken to mean the Kostoboks (p.153). It was almost certainly this incident that prompted Aelius Aristides to write hisEleusinian Oration. On the origins and date of the Kostoboks, Frazer v.429-30.

CHAPTER 6

Pausanias on Her odes Atticus and other benefactors

In this chapter I consider the benefactors, or euergetai1, whomPausanias mentions, other than the emperors. They comprise theAugustan and the Hadrianic Eurykles of Sparta; Philopappos ofCommagene, whose monument in Athens was erected in c.114—6;'Aithidas' of Messene (mid second century AD); 'the Roman senatorAntoninus' (a contemporary of Pausanias, whose floruit was in the160s); and Herodes Atticus (CAD 103-79). The length of this chapterreflects the markedly small number of such benefactors, and theproportion of it devoted to Herodes Atticus also reflects Pausanias'own attentions. Both of these aspects are worth examination.

Herodes Atticus was a contemporary of Pausanias and a manwhose activities in Greece — well attested by Pausanias — are unique intheir scope for a private individual in this period. These activities(and those of Herodes elsewhere) reveal a man who acted in manyrespects in the manner of an emperor, and shed an informative lighton the practice of private benefaction in Pausanias' day. It is the sheerscale of Herodes' capacity to act as a benefactor that makes him soexceptional, allowing him, for example, to create his own privateprojects such as his estates at Marathon and Loukou, as well as themore conspicuous public monuments.

The primary purpose of such benefactions is publicity for thebenefactor: one acts thus in order to be noticed. Hence beingmentioned by writers such as Pausanias was part of the purpose ofthese benefactions, part of the pay-off. Consequently, the effect of a

1 Although the words euergetes and euergetism are used in this chapter with reference to privatecitizens, they are by no means confined to private citizens in conventional usage. Euergetes isused, for example, of Tiberius (see above, p. 83). Note also the word euergesia on the base of astatue of Mummius set up at Olympia by the cities of Elis (Dittenberger and Purgold (1896)no.319; Philipp and Koenigs (1979) 211 fig. 5; most recently on the Mummian inscriptions atOlympia, Tzifopoulos (1993) esp. 98-100). On aspects of euergetism in the second century BGand its relevance to relations between Greece and Rome, Erskine (1994).

192 Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors

major benefactor is likely to be diminution of the potential publicitygiven to a lesser one. It may well be for this reason that there are so fewprivate benefactors; after all, such donors — even Herodes Atticus -were of lesser status and ability to make such benefactions than theemperors.

It is not coincidental that all but one of the figures considered in thischapter date from the second century AD. It has already been arguedin chapter i that the Hadrianic period saw the growing ability of theupper classes to express their increasing prosperity by travelling, andthat the Panhellenion may have been in part a response to thedemands of such people. Certainly travel to mainland Greece hadlong been an integral part of their cultural expectations. Combinedwith these expectations was the conspicuous tendency of the timetowards self-promotion to which reference has already been made.Against this background, the practice of benefaction among the verywealthy is readily comprehensible.

PHILOPAPPOS

In his brief note on the Mouseion hill in Athens, Pausanias mentionsthat ca monument was built here to a Syrian man' (1.25.8). The onlyother piece of information offered is that it dates from after 294 BG, thetime of Demetrios son of Antigonos ('Poliorketes'). The reference is tothe monument of Caius Julius Antiochos Epiphanes Philopappos,whose grandfather was the last king of Commagene. Philopapposhimself used the title of'king5, and became suffect consul and archonof Athens. His monument dates from AD 114-16.2

The monument is exceptionally prominent, its topographicalposition giving Philopappos more familiarity than he might otherwisecommand. Pausanias mentions that the tomb is 'within the ancientcircuit of the city', a rarity which Spawforth has called 'a privilegeassociated with citizens practising euergetism on a large scale',drawing a pertinent parallel with the intramural burials of HerodesAtticus and his daughter (Philostratos, VS 565-6, 557-8).3 DianaKleiner, in the most detailed study of the monument, believes that itderives from his birth rather than any benefactions he may havemade, and she points out that no great public buildings can be2 Kleiner (1983), with reviews by Spawforth (1984) and Walker (1984). Frazer's discussion

(11.326-8) includes a translation of the inscription on the monument. On Philopappos' careerand titles, Kleiner (1983) 9-17. 3 Spawforth (1984) 215.

Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors 193

associated with him.4 However, this is to use a narrow definition ofeuergetism excluding such benefactions as, for example, Philopappos'lavish agonothesia of the Dionysia recorded by Plutarch (Mor. 628A).

Philopappos' broader euergetism remains a matter of inference,and the uncertainty cannot be resolved here. But could it be thatPausanias gives Philopappos5 monument such a brief mention becauseit was not in fact a reflection of his benefactions, and that therefore itwas not relevant to his purpose except in that it currently occupiedthe hill whose history he was engaged in detailing? Or could it be thatsuch benefactions as there were did not seem to Pausanias to qualifytheir sponsor for discussion, nor to be worth description in themselves?That, too, remains speculative, but it is worth noting that Pausaniasdoes not discuss other forms of euergetism (other than imperial).

The phrasing used by Pausanias is striking, since he fails to namePhilopappos. Unless Pausanias did not actually visit the Mouseion,but merely saw it from the Akropolis, as Wycherley has suggested,5 hecannot have been unaware of Philopappos' identity, so prominent ishis name on the monument.

EURYKLES

References have already been made to the Spartan benefactorsnamed Eurykles and, while each is best considered in its context, somegeneral remarks may be added here.

The Augustan Eurykles (see above, pp. 111, 132) is not mentionedby Pausanias despite his extensive building and the significant localpolitical responsibilities given him by Augustus. His descendant, C.Julius Eurykles Herculanus, who is known to have died CAD I 36,6 isnot certainly mentioned by Pausanias, the only possible referencebeing to 'the most celebrated' baths at Corinth, for which 'Eurykles, aSpartan' was responsible (2.3.5; s e e above, p. i n ) . While thebuilding itself is complimented, Pausanias says of Eurykles only thathe was 'a Spartan' (aner Spartiates), the same kind of phrasing that heused of Philopappos, with the difference that here he names theperson referred to. It is, then, the building that is of interest, not its

4 Kleiner (1983) 17.5 Wycherley (1963) 160. As Kleiner ((1983) 37, 46) observes, the best view of the monument is,

as it was in Pausanias' day, from the Akropolis.6 Cartledge and Spawforth (1989) 108-12; also, 185-6 on the games founded and endowed by

Eurykles at Sparta.

194 Pausanias on Her odes Atticus and other benefactors

donor. Indeed, the very fact that Pausanias picks out Eurykles' bathin preference to those of Hadrian and other (unspecified) donorsclearly indicates that it is the buildings themselves which are his priority.

THE ROMAN SENATOR ANTONINUS

The passage in which Pausanias refers to the buildings erected at thesanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros by 'the Roman senator Antoninus'(2.27.6-7) has been briefly mentioned in chapter 1 (see above, p. 41),where it was noted that these are buildings 'erected in our time', andthat Pausanias makes no comment on the buildings themselves.

The donor's identity as the Roman senator Sextus Julius MaiorAntoninus Pythodoros has now been firmly established, and his dateas the 160s, contemporary with Pausanias.7 Pausanias credits himwith a bath, sanctuary and temple with no detail other than to namethe deities to whom these were dedicated. He also mentions hisrestoration of the Stoa of Kotys, one of the roofless buildingsPausanias notes on occasion; and a house for the dying, built 'toremedy the inconvenience'.8 Thus the notion of benefaction isexplicitly mentioned only in connection with the building which isarchitecturally the humblest of those erected by Antoninus. And itrecurs in the final reference to a work of Antoninus, the cistern in thenearby sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas, which 'is a gift of Antoninus tothe Epidaurians'.9

'AITHIDAS '

In the course of describing the monuments of Messene, Pausaniasrefers to one 'Aithidas', saying that he was 'older than myself, withthe clear implication that he was an older contemporary; hecontinues, 'because he was a man of some property the Messenianshonour him as a hero. Some of the Messenians, indeed, said thatAithidas was certainly very wealthy, but that it is not he who issculptured on this monument, but an ancestor and namesake of his'(4.32.2). He then adds that the ancestor, also named Aithidas,

7 Habicht (1985) 10.8 Pausanias does not mention, and may not have known, that many buildings in the sanctuary

were demolished at this period to provide material for priests' houses' (AR 1982-3, 28).9 Most accessibly, V. Lambrinoudakis in AR 1993-4, 16; AR 1991-2, 13; AR 1989-90, 15, in

each case with references to excavation reports in Greek.

Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors 195

commanded the Messenians at the time of Demetrios, son of Philip.However, the latter identification is a confusion with Demetrios theIllyrian, associate, rather than, son, of Philip V.10 Similarly, Pausaniasseems to have misnamed 'Aithidas', who is one of several generationsbearing the name and is to be identified with the Tiberius ClaudiusSaithida Caelianus known from epigraphical evidence to have been aRoman citizen, high priest of the imperial cult, and 'Helladarch' ofthe Achaeans.11

Unfortunately, a lacuna has robbed us of the 'prompt' that causedPausanias to mention Saithida, but his statement that 'because hewas a man of some property the Messenians honour him as a hero'carries the implication that it was the benefactions he made with hiswealth, rather than his wealth jfr̂ r se, which brought him this honour.The form of the monument is not clear,12 but the fact that he was'sculptured on this monument' suggests a prominent work.

The passage as we have it is notable as a rare reference to acontemporary benefactor, although this is not the point of interest forPausanias: rather, it is the fact that he is honoured as a hero. His statusis thus unparalleled among contemporary figures mentioned byPausanias.

HERODES ATTIGUS

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Herodes Atticus wasby no means an ordinary private citizen; nor, as was noted in thediscussion of Philopappos, was he buried as such, being granted theexceptional honour of intramural burial in recognition of hisbenefactions. He was consul in AD 143, and as an exceptionallywealthy aristocrat, he was well placed to play the role of benefactor tothe fullest, and to this Pausanias is one of our most valuable witnesses.In the nature and extent of his benefactions, Herodes was in manyrespects playing at being an emperor, and his place in this study,complementary to that of the emperors themselves, is thereforeappropriate.

The best-known passage of Pausanias concerning Herodes was

10 Habicht (1985) 98, giving other examples of minor slips of nomenclature in Pausanias.11 On the men named Saithida, Habicht (1985) 18 n.75, 58-9; Halfmann (1979) 174 no. 93a,

196 nos. 126-7; Musti and Torelli (1991) 259-60; Papahatzis 3.129 n.2; Frazer m.434-5.For a recently published Hellenistic inscription from Messene referring to one of the family,Ergon 1988,37-9. 12 Musti and Torelli (1991) 259 suggest a stele with Saithida's portrait.

196 Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors

written during his description of Patrai, but with a retrospective eyeto Athens: 'This music hall is the grandest in Greece, except the one atAthens, which excels it both in size and in its whole style. The latterwas erected by the Athenian Herodes in memory of his dead wife. Inmy book on Attica this music hall is not mentioned, because mydescription of Athens was finished before Herodes began to build thehall' (7.20.6).

While this is of broad interest for the rare detail of Pausanias'compositional method, it is of more interest for present purposes forthe fact that Pausanias says he would have mentioned the Odeion atAthens if he had had the opportunity. Whether he would have givenus anything more than the simple passing mention here we cannotknow, but in any case this constitutes another exception to theoften-stated rule that he generally disdains modern buildings.

This is true also of the stadium in Athens, which Pausanias says wasbuilt 'of white marble' by Herodes, and which he rather curiouslysays was 'wonderful to see, though not so impressive to hear of(1.19.6).13 It reinforces the point made repeatedly above thatPausanias puts great stress on autopsy, as he had obviously heard ofthe stadium before his visit, but nonetheless he characteristicallydecided that on this occasion he would go against the advice of hissource, see it for himself and make up his own mind. It obviously paidoff.

The passage contains one further phrase of great interest concerningthe stadium, in which Pausanias adds that 'the greater part of thePentelic quarries was used up in its construction'. This is clearlyuntrue - the Pentelic quarries are still being used today - and it maybe a simple case of Pausanias getting it wrong. Or it may be that amore accurate translation would be 'his Pentelic quarries': thephrasing used by Pausanias certainly allows such a translation,14 andan inscription on a marble block and datable to AD 166 by the namesof the consuls mentioned in it, may also indicate that Herodes did infact own part of a quarry.15 The inscription is as follows:

On the location of the stadium, Romano (1985). For the Herodean monuments associatedwith the stadium area, Tobin (1993).Robinson (1944), seeing oi as the key word. To his argument may be added the proximity ofthis word in the text to the name of Herodes, and its being masculine. Ameling (1983) 2.216,follows this reading, and gives further references. The translation as 'the Pentelic quarries'given by Frazer is followed by Jones (Loeb edn), Levi (1971), and Pollitt (1983) 183.The inscription is Ameling (1983) 2.216 no. 199.

Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors 197

SERBILIO PUDENTEET FUFIDIO POLLIONECOS. CAESURA CLA.HIER. ATTICI ET APOLLONI LUPI

Ameling gives parallels for the use of'caesura' as a technical term instone-cutting. Objections to the idea of Herodes owning a quarryhave centred on the reading of the inscription, and the idea that onlyemperors could own quarries.16 While the word 'HIER5 where onewould expect 'HER' does raise a difficulty, there is no other obviouscandidate, and the exceptional nature of Herodes' wealth andposition makes such a claim not at all incredible. In fact, theownership of quarries by private individuals was not impossible,whether or not one takes this inscription as evidence for it.17 However,it must be stressed that, if Herodes did indeed own a quarry, thiswould constitute a highly exceptional example of an individual otherthan an emperor owning a quarry, even in part. Indeed, as StephenMitchell has stressed, the emperors 'owned many of the major sourcesof building materials in the empire'.18 That this would apparently beunique says much for the status, as well as the wealth, of Herodes.

Pentelic marble also features in Pausanias' reference to Herodes'rebuilding of the stadium at Delphi: classing it among 'the notableobjects', he says that it was 'made of the common stone of Parnassus,until Herodes the Athenian rebuilt it of Pentelic marble' (10.32.1).Philostratos refers to Herodes dedicating the stadium at Delphi (VS551). In fact, Pausanias is wrong to make this claim, unless thelimestone of which the stadium was constructed had been faced withPentelic by Pausanias' time, and this has subsequently disappeared.19

This is by no means impossible - after all, the sanctuary of AthenaPronoia at Delphi became known as the Marmaria precisely becauseit was from the ancient buildings that one would help oneself tomarble in the Middle Ages. The passage is of interest as the onlyoccasion on which Pausanias mentions a Roman building - and eventhen it is a rebuilding — at Delphi; the only other mention of Roman

16 Gasparri (1974-5) 39°~2> followed by Tobin (1991) 29-30.17 This inscription has most recently been discussed by Clayton Fant, who concludes that it

reflects imperial ownership; however, he also accepts the wider possibility of privateownership (Fant (1993) 167; cf. 158-9, in the context of the second century AD).

18 Mitchell (1987b) 344. He goes on to discuss the implications of imperial ownership for themechanism of building.

19 On possible reasons for Pausanias' error, Tobin (1991) 237, Aupert (1979) 92-3.

198 Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors

artefacts is of imperial portraits in the sanctuary of Athena Pronoia(10.8.6; see p. 125 above).

Herodes also built one of the most famous omissions from Pausanias'account, the nymphaion at Olympia. Possible reasons for its omissionwere discussed in chapter 1 (see above, pp. 37-8). In fact, allPausanias has to say of Herodes at Olympia is that at the sanctuary ofDemeter Chamyne near the hippodrome, 'instead of the old images,Herodes the Athenian dedicated new images of the Maid andDemeter, made of Pentelic marble' (6.21.2). This implies thereplacement of old statues by new, an unusual procedure which maybe taken to show a lack of respect, although replacement is a differentmatter from the removal or looting that Pausanias has so oftendocumented elsewhere. If such replacement did constitute inappropriatebehaviour, it is perhaps surprising that Pausanias does not remark onthis, merely reporting the fact without comment, since he hasassiduously documented previous removals of ancient statues. Itwould amount to allowing his opinion of the individual concerned toaffect his view of the morality of their deeds in relation to theantiquities. However this may appear to us, we can be fairly sure of thereason for Herodes' interest in this sanctuary, since his wife Regillawas priestess of Demeter Chamyne in AD 153.20 Herodes' updating ofthe cult statues can, therefore, be seen as part of the same programmeof promotion of his family that pervades his public and private works.

As Herodes replaced statues at the shrine of Demeter Chamyne atOlympia, so he may also have replaced ancient statues with modernin the temple of Poseidon at Isthmia (2.1.7) .21 It is clear from Pausanias'description that he is referring to the cult statues as dedications byHerodes, and they are described in unusual detail for contemporarydedications. Their material, gold and ivory, is commensurate with hiswealth and propensity to the ostentatious gesture. As noted, this is theonly case in Pausanias' text where his reference to a contemporaryartefact contains a significant element of description.

The 'Music-Hall' Pausanias briefly mentions at Corinth (2.3.6) hasbeen discussed (see above, p. 111) as probably the one built in the latefirst century AD and remodelled by Herodes, perhaps after Pausanias'visit. Whether he saw it before or after Herodes' remodelling, it is anear-contemporary building, and its very mention is of interest,although it is only a topographical indicator.20 Ameling (1983) 2.128, using the evidence of the inscription referred to above, p. 38 n. 105; Bol

(1984) 99. 21 Sturgeon (1987) 4, 84.

Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors 199

Herodes was responsible for many other buildings, particularly inAttica.22 Pausanias mentions none of these, but one is of interest forpresent purposes nonetheless: an inscription found at Myrrhinous inAttica shows that Herodes 'repaired the temple and dedicated thestatue to Athena'.23 Pausanias saw a wooden image of Kolainis atMyrrhinous (1.31.4). 'Kolainis' was a cult title of Artemis,24 and whatPausanias saw would have been the cult-statue of the temple ofArtemis Kolainis at Myrrhinous: it is certainly extremely unlikelythat Herodes would have dedicated in his newly rebuilt temple astatue made of wood, and the reference to a wooden statue is muchmore likely to be to an ancient statue.

Unfortunately, apart from this inscription, there is no knownreference to the temple of Athena at Myrrhinous, and we cannot,therefore, know when it was rebuilt. In consequence, we cannot besure whether Pausanias would have seen it. If, by the time ofPausanias' visit, the temple had not been repaired, Pausanias mighthave mentioned it as he does a good number of ruinous temples. If thetemple had been repaired by then, he made a decision to mention theancient wooden statue of Kolainis - and it is only the statue hementions, not the temple - but to ignore the temple of Athena, newlyrefurbished by Herodes and equipped by him with a statue. In thatcase, this would be a neat example of Pausanias' preference for theancient over the modern, but the issue must remain speculative onpresent evidence.

The most ambitious project we hear of Herodes considering, thecutting of the Corinth canal, remained untried because he had beendeterred by Nero's experience, according to Philostratos (VS 551-2),who also says, in the context of Herodes' attempt, that cutting theIsthmus 'calls for Poseidon rather than a mere man'. Despite a certainsimilarity in the sentiment, there appears to be none of the associationof impiety found in references to attempts to cut the canal by Caesar,Caligula and Nero; it must, however, be admitted that since Pliny'slist (JV//4.10) comprises all attempts known to him, there is no reasonto suppose that he would have exempted Herodes had he lived in thatera. It is interesting that Pausanias makes no reference to Herodes'

22 Herodes' buildings in Attica (as elsewhere) are best documented and discussed in Tobin (1991).23 Ameling (1983) 2.214 no. 19^-24 Frazer n.412-3. Epigraphic evidence shows that the priest of Artemis Kolainis had a seat at

the theatre of Dionysos (Maass (1972) 126), as did, for example, the priests of Roma andAugustus (see above, pp. 123-4), and of Hadrian Eleutherios (see above, p. 163).

200 Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors

interest in cutting the canal; he may not have known of it. Whether hewould have been as condemnatory of it as he is of Nero's attempt (seeabove, pp. 151-2) we cannot know.

Herodes was a sophist, almost by definition wealthy,25 but with thegreat additional benefit of considerable inheritances, particularlyafter the death of his father, as well as having the luck to find a fortunein a house he had just bought (Philostr. VS 547-9). He was enabledby his wealth to pursue his aims and to make benefactions on aconsiderable scale. Bowersock is right that 'the benefactions ofsophists are a palpable expression of the union of literary, politicaland economic influence, so characteristic of the Second Sophistic',26

but wrong to imply that these benefactors (including Herodes) actedqua sophists. Rather, it is the case that, in Bowie's words, 'the sophistshould be seen as a species of the genus Greek aristocrat and that hismembership of that genus is the greatest factor contributing to hissuccess'.27

For intellectuals and benefactors to avow a close relationship withthe emperor was not uncommon, and Herodes, an extreme exampleof a benefactor in extent although typical in intent, regarded himselfas being on especially good terms with the emperor, particularlyMarcus Aurelius.28 His claims can also be seen in many aspects of hisbuilding, and a few examples may briefly be noted here. The specificallusions and parallels with imperial building in Herodes' works areto those of Hadrian: perhaps the most obvious (although not the mostconspicuous) is the Gate of Eternal Harmony on his estate atMarathon, which incorporated two inscriptions in clear imitation ofthat on the arch of Hadrian at Athens:

The Gate of Eternal Harmony. The place you enter is Regilla'sThe Gate of Eternal Harmony. The place you enter is Herodes'

And a third inscription, on a pillar of the arch, reads 'Happy is he whohas built a new city, calling it by name Regilla's'.29 It is hard not to seein these inscriptions a deliberate echo of the claims for Hadrian'simpact on Athens. If they also echo faithfully the intention behind theinscriptions on the arch of Hadrian, they suggest that Hadrian wasintended to be seen as complementing, rather than replacing,Theseus, as Herodes complements Regilla.

The scale of the parallels with Hadrian which Herodes incorporated25 Bowie (1982) 30; Bowersock (1969) 21-5. 26 Bowersock (1969) 27.27 Bowie (1982) 53. 28 Bowie (1982) 51-3. 29 Tobin (1991) 113-19.

Pausanias on Herodes Atticus and other benefactors 201

into his buildings is considerable: in addition to the above may brieflybe noted the building technique of the Odeion at Athens, and its useof marble of different colours, both features which parallel the libraryof Hadrian; Herodes' calling an area of one of his estates the Canopus,and probably a second, adorning both with Egyptianizing sculpture,unmistakable reminiscences of Hadrian's villa at Tivoli; and his use ofgold and ivory at Isthmia, all the more striking because it hadrecently been revived as a medium for sculpture by Hadrian for thetemple of Olympian Zeus (see above, p. 174).30

The above examples have been quoted at some length, not as aPausanian digression, but to explain the statement, made at thebeginning of this chapter, that Herodes acted in many respects like anemperor. Clearly, many of the actions of an emperor were not open tohim, but some were, most conspicuously euergetism, and that hepractised on a truly imperial scale.

30 T o b i n (1991) 5 1 , 2 9 4 - 5 , 2 I I 5 a l s o 395~~7-

CHAPTER 7

Conclusions

Having looked in detail at the text of Pausanias and particularly at hiswords concerning the leading figures of the later Republic and earlyEmpire, I wish here to stand back from the details in order to look atthe overall picture, at what Pausanias actually thought of Rome andall that it had brought to Greece. Also to bring together hisapproaches to past and present, to assess whether he regards the latteras lesser than the former, whether he denigrates the present better topromote the past; how far he seeks to glorify the past, and how far heignores the present, following the archaizing tendency in the cultureof his age which has repeatedly been stressed in the preceding pages.

Pausanias does not feel negatively towards Rome per se - he hadvisited Rome and wondered at its sights (8.17.4, 9.21.1), as well as atthose of other parts of Italy. In saying that Pausanias does not feelnegatively towards Rome, I follow Palm (and others) in supportingClavier's emendation of the text at 8.27.1, to include epi, with themeaning that the inhabitants were overtaken by 'disaster under theRoman Empire' (i.e. as a chronological statement) rather thanmeaning the 'disaster of the Roman Empire'.1 This is an importantpoint for present purposes since, as Palm observes, it has been the keyelement in any view of Pausanias as anti-Roman. This is supported bythe fact that Pausanias also does not feel negatively towards Romanintervention in Greece per se: there had been significant Romanintervention between the Macedonians and Mummius, my starting-point, and he regards that period as one of revival for Greece.

This is not to say that he passes over Roman maltreatment ofGreece in those years: explaining that over a thousand Greeks had

1 Palm (1959) 74, followed by Habicht (1985) 119-20; Bearzot (1992) 19 and n.28; alsoRocha-Pereira, in the Teubner text which has been used throughout this book. Frazer'stranslation (on which, Palm (1959) 74 n.2) gives no hint of the problem (and no discussion inthe commentary). On Pausanias' travels in Italy, Frazer i.xxi-ii.

202

Conclusions 203

been taken to Rome on suspicion of having favoured Perseus (andsome kept prisoner for sixteen years), he says that 'never before hadthis been done to Greeks', going on to add that not even theMacedonians had behaved thus (7.10.10-12). Again, he says ofFlamininus, who was no less than the liberator of Greece from theMacedonians, and of'Otilius' (see above, p. 81 n.4), who had beensent by the Romans because of Athenian weakness, to help theAthenians against Philip (7.7.7-8, 10.36.6), that they 'behaved withmerciless severity to ancient Greek cities that had never done theRomans any harm' (7.8.2). Nonetheless, Flamininus instigated the(as it turned out, short-lived) revival of Greece. If Pausanias' intenthad been to glorify the Classical, Greek, past, he would surely havepainted this era as black as possible for contrast. The fact that he doesnot, but that he also mentions Roman faults, suggests that he is moreconcerned with reporting the results of an honest assessment thanwith striking a pose.

Pausanias sees the crucial turning-point in the history of Greeceas the sack of Corinth by Mummius in 146 BC, paving the way forthe re-foundation of Corinth in 44 BC, and with it the change in thebalance of Greek and Roman in what became the chief city ofthe newly annexed province of Achaia. For Pausanias the demise ofCorinth is closely associated with Mummius personally, as it is inother accounts. But while the other sources have much to say ofMummius' personal avariciousness, Pausanias makes no mention ofthis; he is, however, the only writer to raise the issue of Mummius'impiety.

Pausanias' emphasis on sanctuaries has been noted, and hisrepeated stress on piety and impiety are consistent with it. Religiousrespect and the lack of it are recurrent factors in forming Pausanias'attitude to the Romans, both individually and collectively; in that, heis simply reflecting the varying approaches of the Romans to Greece,and at every point he documents the actions of these figures andexplains exactly why his attitude is as it is. There is no sense in whichhe is employing gratuitous abuse — nor, in other cases, gratuitouspraise — rather, he is relaying to us his views as they arise naturallyfrom the course of his narrative. This is true of his approach toMummius, and I believe it remains so throughout.

Pausanias sees the Mummian invasion as 'the period when Greecesank to the lowest depths of weakness' (7.17.1). Among the acts ofMummius which he lists, Pausanias says that he 'put down the

204 Conclusions

democracies' (7.16.9); the context makes it quite clear that he did notapprove. The accuracy of this bald statement is questionable, butthere is nothing to suggest that Pausanias is not sincerely giving hisopinion here, rather than deliberately putting an anti-Romanconstruction on events.2Another comment of Pausanias' on democracyis worth recalling here, namely that the Athenians were the onlypeople who had ever thrived under a democracy (4.35.5; demokratia isused in both cases). Palm takes this latter comment as indicatingPausanias' scepticism of democracy, which he sees as typical of 'dieanderen Sophisten'.3As far as this latter point is concerned, there is noevidence that can be adduced to demonstrate that Pausanias was asophist apart from what is revealed in his writings of his interests,approaches and attitudes; and I have suggested on several occasionsthat they can often be seen to be distinct from those of the sophists.

In responding to Palm's suggestion that Pausanias is sceptical ofdemocracy, I would note that, while generally true, it is notuniversally so: first, Pausanias continues by saying 'and they certainlyflourished under it', an admission that the system could work.Further, it is significant that it worked at Athens, which was muchadmired by Pausanias; his phrase that 'even a democracy is capable ofa just decision' (1.29.7) *s u s ed in connection with Athens, and servesto show how exceptional he thought Athens in this respect. Secondly,Mummius' suppression of 'the democracies' is incorporated byPausanias into a list of his misdeeds. The inference I draw is thatPausanias thought democracy capable of working well, and that heconcluded that it was undeserving of the treatment it received fromMummius.

It is also indicative of Pausanias' interests that he does not dwell onAthenian democracy: if his intention had been to glorify the Classicalpast of Greece, he would surely have mused nostalgically, if briefly, onthe now defunct system, perhaps noting its advantages over thepresent, Roman, one. While a sense of political tactfulness, allied withthe extent of its relevance to his project, may have prevented thisbecoming a major theme, it is not at all unthinkable for him to haveincluded some such thoughts. But he does not. This is clear from histreatment of Julius Caesar's political reforms - there is certainly noplace for it in his discussion of Mummius. Pausanias identifies Caesaras the one who 'instituted at Rome the system of government under2 Ferrary (1988) 203: Pausanias' phrase is called 'une formule qui prend l'exact contrepied de

la these romaine officielle'; also 191-5. 3 Palm (1959) 69.

Conclusions 205

which we live' (2.1.2; cf. 3.11.4). The comment is made in a neutraltone and, since he nowhere shows signs of regarding this 'system ofgovernment' as tyrannical or even oppressive, either intrinsically orin practice, we can only conclude that no disdain towards Caesar isintended.

It may also be that this is effectively a reminder to his readers of anelement of political history which Pausanias may not have felt able toassume familiar to everyone. As I argued in the first chapter, oneshould not take for granted too much knowledge of this kind aroundtwo hundred years after the fact. The wider implications of thepassage extend to his own day since he saw Augustus as the successorof Caesar in this as in other respects — as, of course, he was — and thenfollowed the line of the emperors to Hadrian, all of them employingthe same system right up to his own time, as the quotation just givenmakes clear. Thus it is not exaggerated to argue that Pausanias is herereflecting content (perhaps no more) with the political system of hisown day; and since he traces it explicitly to Caesar, his view of Caesarmust be regarded as at least no worse than neutral.

Pausanias sees Caesar's re-foundation of Corinth as an effective'antidote' to Mummius' destruction of it, and in the purely physicalsense it was indeed a reversal of what Mummius had accomplished.But the theme goes deeper, stemming from the political andadministrative system which Pausanias tells us Caesar had introduced.Pausanias notes that some of Mummius' actions were reversed 'notlong afterwards' (7.16.10); another reversal of policy, that byVespasian of Nero's, occasions a brief contrast of character (7.17.3-4).The partial reversal of Mummius' policies was undertaken because'the Romans took pity on Greece', a further indication of how low thefortunes of Greece had sunk, and a point in favour of the Romans.Whilethere is an implicit contrast of Mummius and the Roman actionswhich followed soon after him, the strongest contrast comes in thecomparison with Caesar's actions. The disparity between Mummiusand Caesar was exemplified by Corinth, the Caesarian re-foundationof which constituted a genuine case of the re-invention of an ancientand once-glorious city in a modern Roman form. Pausanias sees theMummian—Caesarian history of Corinth in two phases: the destructionand its effects, and the re-foundation, closely and exclusively associatedwith Caesar, the oikistes (2.3.1).

For Pausanias, Corinth encapsulated the contrast between pastand present - the Greek population had gone, as also some of their

206 Conclusions

cults, in both cases Greek replaced by Roman. This is a significantdifference from the Athenocentricity of the contemporary sophists.Although Pausanias' disdain for the importing of modern Romans totake the place of displaced Greeks is clear, and is the result of thefounding of the veteran colony by Caesar, the conditions for it werecreated by Mummius just over a century earlier, and it is onMummius that Pausanias' opprobrium falls in considerable measure.We do not have here parallel lives in the manner of Plutarch, butthere is a studied antithesis.

In other sources, there is an opposition of character, essentiallybetween the boorish Mummius and the cultured Caesar. This is notapparent in Pausanias, which may be counted an example of acharacteristically Pausanian policy of not gratuitously denigratingthe character of whichever individual he is dealing with. If commentingon someone's character is not pertinent to what he is discussing at thetime, he will not do so. It cannot be the case that he was unaware ofthe stories about the character of Mummius (or of figures incomparable cases): this is, rather, deliberate self-restraint arisingfrom a certain single-mindedness in fulfilling the task he has set himself.

Between Mummius and Caesar comes Sulla, politically irrelevantin the sense that the 'system of government' which prevailed in Achaiadated from after his time, but nonetheless an important figure in thehistory of Roman Greece. Sulla is portrayed as cruel, repressive, andsuffering under divine disfavour, all of which is commensurate withother sources. Sulla was an important focus of Greek—Romanrelations since he sacked Athens — in itself a heinous act — in revengefor the Athenians' siding against the Romans (i .20.4). Pausanias alsohas much to say on the looting of cities and sanctuaries by Sulla. It is,therefore, very significant for Pausanias' view of Romanness thathe twice explicitly distances Sulla from 'the Roman character'(9.33.6, 1.20.7). The opportunity presented itself to use Sulla's deedsas a stick with which to beat the Romans in respect of their actions inGreece, and Pausanias not only rejected the opportunity, butpositively distanced the Romans from such associations.

Here too is another illustration of the point made already aproposof Mummius, that Pausanias will only comment on someone'scharacter if doing so arises naturally from his narrative. If his primaryconcern had been with Sulla rather than with the visible monumentsof Athens, he would undoubtedly have mentioned Sulla's removal ofthe library, of which Plutarch {Sulla 26.1) and Strabo (13.1.54) write

Conclusions 207

(see above, p. 1 o 1). To an educated man like Pausanias, familiar withlibraries (perhaps those of Pergamon and elsewhere, as suggestedabove, p. 34), this would have been an appalling act, and yet he doesnot mention it. Again, I think this can be attributed to his focusingfirmly on his aims, and not allowing himself to digress in order to addwhat for him would be gratuitous details of character.

Before leaving Sulla, it is worth returning to the passage in whichPausanias details the events leading to the Sullan invasion of Athens,partly quoted in chapter 3 (above, p. 100). Aristion 'persuaded theAthenians to prefer Mithridates to the Romans; but he did notpersuade all of them, only the turbulent part of the populace: therespectable Athenians fled to the Romans' (1.20.5). While acknowl-edging the sense of Palm's view that this is a natural opinion after along period of Roman rule,4I wonder if there is more to it: Pausaniascontinues by saying that one of Mithridates' generals, Archelaos, hadonce 'overrun the territory of the Magnesians of Sipylos'. If, as Ibelieve is the case, this is Pausanias' home town (and it is at the least atown he is familiar with and has affection for), it is not improbablethat his approval for the Athenians' action stems from his dislike ofMithridates as much as from his approval of the Romans.

I mentioned that Sulla is irrelevant in terms of politics andgovernment, and with Augustus we pick up threads from thediscussion of Caesar, his adoptive father. The majority of Pausanias'references to Augustus concern politics and government. Pausaniassees continuity from Caesar to Augustus who, building on theinstitution of'the present system of government', 'placed the empireon a firmer basis, and attained a height of dignity and power whichhis father never reached' (3.11.4). This is a more than acceptingattitude — more so than the attitude I detected in his reference toCaesar - and that is as it should be, since he is now dealing with asystem developed (more satisfactorily in his view) from that institutedby Caesar. Given the link that he is stressing, Pausanias cannot beunfavourable to Caesar if he is to be favourable to Augustus, but hecan, and does, vary the extent of his approval.

The re-foundation of Corinth as a veteran colony by Caesar isparalleled by the formation (rather than re-foundation) of Patrai by acombination of veteran colony and synoikism of local villages, withthe consequent movement of population. The parallels between

4 Palm (1959) 70. Frazer (1.221) gives other ancient references.

208 Conclusions

Corinth and Patrai are there to be made, not least in terms of thepersonal roles of Caesar and Augustus. But Pausanias makes no overtcomparison, although the picture of Augustus as successor of Caesarmight be thought sufficient - it should at least be borne in mind. IfPausanias felt that the Greek populations moved to Patrai weremaltreated in the way that he thinks the Greek population of Corinthhad been, he does not say so. The neutrality of his attitude may reflectthe differing circumstances of the two cases - the population of Patraiis moved rather than removed and replaced. But he also refersneutrally to the depopulation of Aitolia to create Nikopolis (10.38.4),a city where he closely identifies Augustus personally with thepolitical system (10.8.3).

Nor does Pausanias condemn the removal of cult objects from'synoikised' Pharai to Rome (7.22.5, 9), as we would expect ofsomeone so frequently damning of those who remove objects,particularly religious ones, from their places of origin. Here again itappears that an exception is being made for Augustus: as I mentioned(see above, p. 129), I find his excusing Augustus3 removal ofantiquities from Greece fawning, a rare instance of his inherentlyadmiring attitude to an individual, in this case Augustus, beingallowed to override his natural, and often expresssed, distaste for suchlooting. Not only did he admire Augustus' role in forming thepolitical and governmental system of his day, but he would have beenaware that Augustus was the first ruler who was broadly active in theprovinces, and that he had had a considerable impact on Asia Minoras well as Greece. The very fact that Pausanias says more aboutAugustus than about any emperor other than Hadrian is indicative ofthe importance of Augustus to him. And if he is favourable towardAugustus, he will inevitably be favourable towards the Romans, sincethe Roman Empire as Pausanias knew it was, by his own account,largely instituted by Augustus.

Of the rest of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, only Nero receives muchattention in Pausanias' writings — Tiberius and Caligula, althoughthey had limited involvement in Greece, were not significant figuresfor Pausanias' purposes and, in keeping with the policy I havementioned above, he avoided gratuitously writing of their charactersin the manner of most of our sources for their lives and works. Hespeaks of Caligula's impiety — recalling his view of Sulla — in removinga statue from Greece to Rome (9.27.3), a passage in which his action iscontrasted with that of Claudius (mentioned only here by Pausanias),

Conclusions 209

who returned the statue, and Nero who again stole it (see above,p. 86). Thus the accompanying comments on the characters ofCaligula and Nero arise directly from the narration of the removal ofthe statue.

Nero was the second most philhellene emperor after Hadrian,although not of an unimpeachable philhellenism, as he was not abovestealing antiquities, as Pausanias forcefully tells us. Nero's characterhas been stressed as being central to the approach to him of Pausaniasas of other writers - but again, Pausanias is consistent in givingattention to Nero's character only when such attention does notrequire a digression. The overwhelming impression is of Pausanias'negative attitude towards Nero — the theft of a statue already stolenby Caligula and restored by Claudius is a representative example.And again the theme of impiety surfaces, in Nero's case noted asunnatural, as in his unsuccessful attempt to violate nature by cuttingthe Corinth canal (2.1.5) and his treatment of his family (9.27.4).

Pausanias remarks that the Eleusinian Mysteries and the Olympicgames enjoyed the 'blessing of god' (5.10.1), and both were clearlydear to his heart, so it is interesting that he mentions neither Nero'sprobable disqualification from the Mysteries nor his corruption of theOlympic games (see above, pp. 143—4, 150). Indeed, he is silent onNero's tour of Greece with the exception of the reference to hisplumbing the depths (literally) at Stymphalos. It is not that Pausaniasomits his actions at Olympia altogether, rather that he confines them,characteristically, to what is relevant to his set purpose - in this case,that Nero is 'said to have' taken statues from Olympia. The phrase'said to have', or variations of it, appears on innumerable occasions,and indicates Pausanias' unwillingness to accept what he is told, orhas read, unless he can verify it for himself- and indeed, it may servethe further purpose of suggesting to the reader that Pausanias hascome across the particular point in the course of his reading.

In this instance, he is being scrupulously fair in reporting what hehas heard as no more than that, although he could readily have gonealong with received belief. It would, after all, have fitted in well withNero's depriving Delphi of 500 statues, the only action of Nero's atDelphi that Pausanias mentions (10.7.1). In that passage, he listsprevious depredations from Delphi much as he listed previousexamples in the context of Augustus' removal of art from Greece(8.46.2). As noted, this is the same technique put to differing ends,according to Pausanias' own conception of the different individuals

210 Conclusions

involved. If we were in doubt as to what that conception is, thememorable phrase that Nero had 'a noble nature depraved by avicious upbringing' is revealing. The context of the remark is that ofNero's declaration of freedom for Achaia, reversed soon after, asPausanias tells us in his only reference to Vespasian, but indicative forhim of what Nero could have been and what he could have done forGreece.

Of the succeeding emperors until Hadrian, most play no part(Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian, and probably Titus), and that isentirely to be expected in view of their known lack of interest inGreece. Vespasian is mentioned once, without comment, and effectivelyonly as a footnote to Nero's declaration of freedom, which he reversed(see above, pp. 155-6). Trajan, whose interests were decidedlyelsewhere, fares a little better, being mentioned twice, once for his giftof freedom to Mothone (4.35.2), and once for his statue in the templeof Zeus at Olympia (5.12.6), as well as his military exploits. The latterstatue is strikingly placed, but the fact that it is next to one ofHadrian, his adopted son, suggests that the statue was erected byvirtue of his association with Hadrian, rather than in his own right.

With Hadrian, we reach the most philhellene of all the figuresPausanias describes, the one whom he mentions most often, and theone whose impact on both Greece and Asia Minor was greatest. OfPausanias' attitude to him there can be no doubt: he was 'thebenefactor of his subjects and especially of Athens' (1.3.2), and he'didmost for the glory of God and the happiness of his subjects' (1.5.5).The contrast with the impiety of Sulla, Caligula and Nero could notbe clearer. Pausanias' attitude is one of undisguised and undilutedreverence and admiration. This was, of course, not unjustified praise- the length of the section on Hadrian above suffices to prove that -and there were many benefactions besides.

Two small points may here be adduced to bring out the subtletiesin Pausanias' treatment of Hadrian. First, he mentions Hadrian'sre-introduction to the winter Nemean games of the double lengthhorse race (6.16.4). Previously, he has omitted Nero's addition of themusical competition at Olympia, which Suetonius {Nero 23.1) doesmention, calling it 'contrary to custom'. It may be that while Nerowas here imposing a new idea on an ancient tradition, Hadrian wasre-introducing something which had lapsed - re-creation perhaps,but at least with a claim to authenticity. Secondly, the promotion of aparallel between Hadrian and Theseus has been seen to be part of

Conclusions 211

Hadrian's intention, an end towards which he made considerableinvestment in Athens in particular. Pausanias3 treatment of thesubject makes an important contribution to this impression, whichshows that Pausanias was at the least content to see Hadrian in thatlight: the most obvious case is on the Megara-Corinth road, firstmade passable by Skiron, and subsequently made wide enough forchariots by Hadrian (1.44.6; see above, p. 182). As mentioned, this isnot made explicit by Pausanias, but the allusion would have beenclear to his educated contemporaries, that is, to those whom he had inmind when writing.

In summary, Pausanias' adulatory attitude to Hadrian is notsurprising, nor is it unjustified. For him, the Hadrianic period is theclimax of Roman benefactions to Greece, and all previous benefactionsare put in perspective by Pausanias' remark that under HadrianAthens flourished again for the first time since Sulla's invasion, that is,in over two hundred years (1.20.7). And Pausanias believed this ofthe rest of Greece (apart from the benighted Megarians). It is perhapsonly by assessing the extent of Roman benefactions in the periodbefore Hadrian that one can realize the full extent of the feeling forHadrian that this belief of Pausanias' reveals.

Not surprisingly, Pausanias has little to say on the period afterHadrian — his own time in the most literal sense. Antoninus Pius ismentioned briefly but reverently, Marcus Aurelius only in passing forhis relationship to Antoninus and his military successes (the latterreference reminiscent of that to Trajan), and Herodes Atticus for hisbenefactions.

Related to Pausanias' view of the Roman individuals he discusses ishis view of Roman dedications. As briefly noted, there are strikinglyfew occasions on which Pausanias refers to any Roman dedicatingobjects or buildings in Achaia, in fact only ten: Mummius twice(5.10.5, 5.24.4); Sulla (9.30.1); Nero twice (2.17.6, 5.12.8); Hadriantwice (1.18.6, 2.17.6); Herodes twice (2.1.7,6.21.2); and an unnamedCorinthian (5.25.1).

These all refer to the dedication of statues; the first Hadrianicreference also includes the Olympieion in Athens, one of only twooccasions on which Pausanias refers to a building in Greece dedicatedby a Roman; the other is the stoa at Hyampolis in Phokis, alsoHadrianic in both construction and dedication (10.35.6; see above,p. 177). This statistic in itself gives little impression of Roman piety orbenefaction towards Achaia, and closer analysis of the list indicates

212 Conclusions

that even this surface impression is exaggerated. Pausanias' phrasingmakes it clear that he regards three of the dedications as tainted:Mummius' dedications celebrated, or were spoils from, his conquestof Achaia; and Sulla's dedication was of a stolen statue. Thisreinforces the impression already argued for that Pausanias' disdainfor Mummius and Sulla is considerable. Of the remaining eightRoman dedications, he passes over six without comment, refers toHerodes' dedications at Olympia as being 'instead of the old images',perhaps a negative phrase, and calls Hadrian's cult-statue for theOlympieion 'worth seeing'. Thus only one of the Roman dedicationsis given any sort of praise, a mark of his feeling towards Hadrian,whose statue of Zeus this was. This is a limited description and, asnoted in chapter i, the dedications of Herodes at Isthmia are the onlyRoman examples described in any detail.

Apart from the above references, which arise from the discussion ofthe individuals on whom chapter 3 concentrates, there are other cluesin Pausanias to his view of Roman piety. His dislike of the imperialcult has already been noted (see above, p. 121). Of his otherreferences to Roman piety, perhaps most striking is the support for theRomans under Metellus given by no less than 'the gods of Greece', allthe more so since this is against the Arkadians (7.15.6). Of piousRoman actions, their respect for Apollo at Abai (10.35.2; see above,p. 188) is contrasted favourably with the actions of the Persians.Contrasts with the Persians are almost inevitably favourable, but it isthe very inclusion of this point that is noteworthy.

The observed preference for Greek over Roman noted in thediscussion of dedications discussed by Pausanias is applicable also tohis choice of which buildings to describe. He also omits Greekbuildings, among them some of the Classical period: the Hephaisteion,one of the most prominent buildings in the Agora of Athens, forexample. And he omits parts of buildings that the modern scholarwould dearly love him to have included, such as the architecturalsculpture of the Parthenon bar the unique and invaluable identificationof the pedimental themes. In other words, he has his own agenda, ashe makes clear on several occasions, centring his approach on theselectivity necessitated by the sheer quantity of buildings and objects.This process is applied to the Greek artefacts as well as to the Roman,so that we should not single out the Roman as his only omissions.Nonetheless, there are considerably fewer Roman than Greek buildingsand objects. For the sculptures on which he expends so much effort

Conclusions 213

this need be no surprise, given that so much imperial sculpture,freestanding above all, was derivative of Classical originals. Whyspend time on the copies and imitations if he can describe the originals?

Where Pausanias can be shown to have omitted a building orobject, there are two logical explanations: he did not see it, or hedeliberately ignored it. Each example needs to be considered in itsplace, and a combination of the two explanations may be required,although there are many cases where we cannot be sure of the reason.On several occasions, I have suggested that the greater familiarity of aparticular architectural form in Asia Minor than in mainland Greecemight be the cause of his omitting mainland examples: a colonnadedstreet (see above, pp. 41-2); an arch (see above, p. 179); stage reliefs,an aqueduct (see above, p. 183). One could call this an expression ofpreference, but I would argue that it owes more to his awareness of hisintended readership, who would want to hear more of what was notfamiliar than of what was, a common enough human attribute. ThusI would not see this aspect of his work as arising from the archaizingtrends of the period. Here his relationship to those trends needsconsidering in further detail.

Second-century Rome's emphasis on the glorious past of ClassicalGreece, and the manifestation of this in the Second Sophistic, haveformed a thread running throughout this book. Here I wish toexamine more closely how far Pausanias' attitude can be said to havebeen moulded by the view of Greece then current at Rome, and howfar he may have diverged from it.

There is no doubt that the past is of more interest to Pausanias thanthe present, even loosely defined. In this his attitude is commensuratewith the prevailing one of his day, manifest at its most extreme in thetotal avoidance of reference to the post-Classical in the works of hiscontemporary Maximus of Tyre (see above, p. 26 n.66). Pausaniasdoes not avoid the present - 1 hope that this book has shown that - buthe undeniably gives it a considerably lower profile than he does thepast. However, in dealing with the past, he does not confine himself tothe favoured period of concentration of his contemporaries, the fifthand fourth centuries. Instead, he not only consistently shows awarenessof the period before the Classical, but attempts to trace it as far backas possible and to differentiate phases within it, as chapter 2 hasshown. This is a personal interest, different from those interests whichmotivate the writers of the Second Sophistic.

Pausanias' own sense of difference — even alienation — from the

214 Conclusions

currents of his day is clear from his stated reluctance to reveal theconclusions of his researches into the dates of Homer and Hesiod,'knowing as I do the carping disposition of some people, especially ofthe professors of poetry of the present day' (9.30.3). I have suggested(pp. 67) that he may have had the sophists in mind here - they are theobvious target, and their spirit of competition would suit thissentiment well. And if he did, he would not be alone in expressingsome scepticism over them and their preoccupations: apart from thesatirizing of Atticizing language found in Lucian (Rhetorum praeceptor16-17) and Athenaios (Deip. i.i.e), Plutarch, in the context ofdiscussing behaving in the manner of one's ancestors, says 'Marathon,the Eurymedon, Plataiai, and all the other examples which make thecommon folk vainly to swell with pride and kick up their heels, shouldbe left to the schools of the sophists' (Mor. 814C). This sentimentwould have found a supporter in Pausanias: showy references to theClassical age of Greece were no part of his purpose.

It might be argued that in searching to analyse the history of art asfar back beyond the Classical as he did, Pausanias was only taking toits logical conclusion the contemporary stress on the past. But thatinterest was in what one might call the 'good period', namely the fifthand fourth centuries, whereas Pausanias' interests are broader, lessrestricted. He is selective in what he reports — that has been repeatedlyemphasized — but he nonetheless concerns himself with a far greaterchronological range in much greater detail than do his contemporaries.And that brings us back to what I called in the first chapter the singlemost distinctive feature in his work, namely autopsy. It is because ofhis insistence on recording what he saw (albeit not all that he saw),that for him a contrast of glorious past and imitative second-ratepresent did not apply: the past that he relates consists of, or arisesfrom, the buildings and objects that he saw on the ground that hewalked. They constituted a physical reality in the present, not arhetorical fiction or an idealizing construct. As I argued in a previouschapter (pp. 32-3), he had no need to evoke a Greek past by referenceto what is no longer there, since his purpose was fulfilled simply bydescription of what was there.

If Pausanias had been following the idealizing trends of his day,with their emphasis on the past to the virtual exclusion of the present,we would have been given far less on the Roman period than thisbook has, I hope, shown we in fact have. We would also have beengiven a view of Rome prejudiced by 'a sense of inevitable decline and

Conclusions 215

fall', in Eisner's phrase (p. 141). As I observed in discussing whetherthis phrase is appropriate to Pausanias (in whom Eisner detects it),Pausanias' own detailing of Greek history makes it clear thatMummius represented the depths of the decline, and that Hadrianrepresented the zenith of prosperity, material and cultural. It isstriking indeed that Pausanias sees the peak of Greece's fortunes asoccurring in his own lifetime; no clearer answer to charges ofarchaism, of idealizing the past, could be given.

As I argued in chapter 2 that Pausanias was attempting to layerand structure the period of and before Classical Greece, so I wouldargue here that he is approaching the Roman period in the same way.In dealing with both periods he sees much of his task in terms of theindividuals concerned - the Greek artists whose works he saw, and theRoman rulers whose actions had an impact on Greece. And in bothcases he sees gradations and differences, viewing each figure accordingto the evidence thathe found and that he painstakingly sets out for hisreaders. While agreeing that Pausanias' preference for the past ismanifest, I suggest that by understanding that he employs the samecriteria for his analysis of the present as he does for that of the past, themodern reader may find in Pausanias a more even-handed view ofmatters Greek and Roman than is generally acknowledged.

Bibliography of works consulted

Abramson, H. (1974) 'The Olympieion in Athens and its connection withRome', CSC A 7: 1-25.

Accame, S. (1946) // dominio Romano in Grecia dalla guerra Acaica ad Augusto(Rome).

Adam, S. (1966) The technique of Greek sculpture in the archaic and classical periods(London).

Adams, A. (1989) 'The arch of Hadrian at Athens', in Walker and Cameron(1989), 10-16.

Adams, L.T. (1978) Orientalizing sculpture in soft limestone from Crete andmainland Greece {BAR S42, Oxford).

Africa, T. (1982) 'Worms and the death of kings: a cautionary note ondisease and history', Cl. Ant. 1: 1 —17.

Albini, U. (1958) 'Pausania 1.4.5', Maia 10: 240.Alcock, S.E. (1989) 'Roman imperialism in the Greek landscape', JRA 2:5-34.Alcock, S.E. (1993) Graecia capta: the landscapes of Roman Greece (Cambridge).Alcock, S.E. (1994) 'Nero at play? The emperor's Grecian odyssey', in

Eisner, J. and Masters, J., eds. Reflections of Nero (London), 98-111.Alderink, LJ . (1989) 'The Eleusinian Mysteries in Roman Imperial times',

ANRW11.18.2, 1457-98.Amandry, P. (1980) 'Sur les concours argiens', BCH suppl. 6: 211—53.Amandry, P. (1988) Le monnayage des duovirs Corinthiens, BCH suppl. 15.Ameling, W. (1983) Herodes Atticus. I : Biographie. I I : Inschriftenkatalog

(Hildesheim).Anderson, G. (1982) 'Lucian: a sophist's sophist', TCS 27: 61-92.Anderson, G. (1990) 'The Second Sophistic: some problems of perspective',

in Russell (1990a), 91 —110.Anderson, G. (1993) The Second Sophistic: a cultural phenomenon in the Roman

Empire (London).Andre, J.-M. (1993) 'Hadrien litterateur et protecteur des lettres', ANRW

11.34.1, 583~6 1 1-Arafat, K.W. (1990a) Classical £eus: a study in art and literature (Oxford).Arafat, K.W. (1990b) 'Fact and artefact: texts and archaeology', Hermathena

148: 45~67-

216

Bibliography 217

Arafat, K.W. (1992) Tausanias' attitude to antiquities', BSA 87: 387-409.Arafat, K.W. (1995) Tausanias and the temple of Hera at Olympia', BSA

90: 461-73.Aupert, P. (1987) Tausanias et l'Asclepieion d'Argos', BCH i n : 511-17.Barnes, T.D. (1978) The sources of the Historia Augusta (Brussels).Barnes, T.D. (1989) 'Emperors on the move', rev. Halfmann (1988), JRA 2:

247-61.Barrett, A. A. (1989) Caligula: the corruption of power (London).Bastet, F.L. and de Vos, M. (1979) Proposta per una classificazione del terzo stile

Pompeiano (*s Gravenhage).Bearzot, C. (1992) Storia e storiograjia ellenistica in Pausania ilperiegeta (Venice).Benario, H.W. (1980) A commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia

Augusta (Ann Arbor).Benjamin, A.S. (1963) 'The altars of Hadrian in Athens and Hadrian's

panhellenic program', Hesperia 32: 57-86.Beschi, L. and Musti, D. (1987) Pausaniaguida della Grecia 1 (2nd edn, Rome).Bieber, M. (1977) Ancient copies: contributions to the history of Greek and Roman art

(New York).Birley, E. (1978) 'Fresh thoughts on the dating of the Historia Augusta\ in

Alfoldi, A., ed., Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1975-6 (Bonn),99-105.

Blouet, A. et al. (1831) Expedition scientifique de Moree I (Paris).Boardman, J. (1980) 'Daedalus and monumental sculpture', in Proceedings of

the Fourth International Cretological Congress, Heraklion 1976 (Athens) 1.43-7.Boatwright, M.T. (1983) 'Further thoughts on Hadrianic Athens', Hesperia

52: 173-6.Boatwright, M.T. (1987) Hadrian and the city of Rome (Princeton).Boatwright, M.T. (1994) 'Hadrian, Athens and the Panhellenion', JRA 7:

426-31.Boeckh, A. (1874) De Pausaniae stilo Asiano (Leipzig).Bol, R. (1984) Olympische Forschungen XV. Das Statuenprogramm des Herodes-

Atticus-Nymphdums (Berlin).Bookidis, N. (1983) 'The priest's house in the Marmaria at Delphi', BCH

J°7 : I49~55-Bosworth, A.B. (1973) 'Vespasian and the provinces: some problems of the

early 70s AD', Athenaeum 51: 49—78.Bowersock, G.W. (1964) 'Augustus on Aigina', CQ^^fi (n.s. 14): 120-1.Bowersock, G.W. (1969) Greek sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford).Bowersock, G.W. (1979) 'Historical problems in late Republican and

Augustan classicism', in Flashar (1979), 57-78.Bowersock, G.W. (1985) Thilostratus and the Second Sophistic', in Easterling

and Knox (1985), 655-62.Bowie, E.L. (1970) rev. B. Levick (1967), Roman colonies in southern Asia Minor

(Oxford), JRS 60: 202-7.Bowie, E.L. (1974) 'The Greeks and their past in the second sophistic', in

Finley, M.5 ed., Studies in ancient society (London) 166—209 = Past &

218 Bibliography

Present 46 (1970) 3-41.Bowie, E.L. (1982) 'The importance of sophists', TCS 27: 29-59.Bowie, E.L. (1989) 'Greek sophists and Greek poetry in the second sophistic',

ANRW 11.33.1, 2O9~58-Bowie, E.L. (1990) 'Greek poetry in the Antonine age', in Russell (1990a),

53-90.Bradley, K.R. (1978a) Suetonius3 life of Nero (Brussels).Bradley, K.R. (1978b) 'The chronology of Nero's visit to Greece AD 66/67',

Latomus 37: 61—72.Bradley, K.R. (1979) 'Nero's retinue in Greece, AD 66/67', Illinois Classical

Studies 4: 152-7.Braund, D. (1984) Rome and the friendly king: the character of the client kingship

(London and Canberra).Briscoe, A. (1985) rev. Keaveney (1982), JRS 75: 238-9.Brodersen, K. (1994) Das Lied von der Welt (Hildesheim).Broneer, O. (1932) Corinth x. The Odeum (Cambridge, Mass.).Broneer, O. (1973) Isthmia 11. Topography and architecture (Princeton).Brunt, P.A. and Moore, J.M. (1967) Res Gestae divi Augusti: the achievements of

the divine Augustus (Oxford).Bucher, W. (1919) De Pausaniae studiis Homericis (diss., Halle).Buckler, J. (1992) 'Plutarch and autopsy', ANRW n.33.6, 4788-830.Bulloch, A.W. (1985) 'Hellenistic poetry', in Easterling and Knox (1985)

541-621.Bultrighini, U. (1990) Pausania ele tradizionidemocratiche: Argo edElide (Padua).Burford, A. (1969) The Greek temple builders at Epidauros (Liverpool).Burns, A. (1976) 'Hippodamus and the planned city', Historia 25: 414-28.Burton, G.P. (1976) 'Proconsuls, assizes and the administration of justice

under the Empire', JRS 66: 92-106.Camp, J .M. (1986) The Athenian Agora. Excavations in the heart of Classical

Athens (London).Carney, T.F. (1961) 'The death of Sulla', Acta Classica 4: 64-79.Carroll, K.K. (1982) The Parthenon inscription, GRBS Monograph 9.Carter, J . C. (1983) The sculpture of the sanctuary of A thena Polias at Prime (London).Cartledge, P. (1978) 'Literacy in the Spartan oligarchy', JHS 98: 25-37.Cartledge, P. and Spawforth, A. (1989) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: a tale of

two cities (London and New York).Casevitz, M. (1979) 'Un fragment de Pausanias dans le Vaticanus gr.2236',

Revue d'Histoire des Textes 9: 239-42.Casevitz, M., ed. (1992) Pausanias description de la Grece 1 (Paris, Bude edn).Casson, L. (1974) Travel in the ancient world (London).Casson, L. (1989) The Periplus maris Erythraei (Princeton).Cecioni, N. (1993) 'Octavian and Orestes in Pausanias', CQ,87 (n.s. 43): 506.Clinton, K. (1989a) 'Hadrian's contribution to the renaissance of Eleusis', in

Walker and Cameron (1989), 56-68.Clinton, K. (1989b) 'The Eleusinian mysteries: Roman initiates and

Bibliography 219

benefactors, second century BG to AD 267', ANRWn.18.2, 1499-1539.Cook, A.B. (1940) Zeus- A study in ancient religion m (Cambridge).Corbett, P.E. (1970) 'Greek temples and Greek worshippers: the literary and

archaeological evidence', BICS 17: 149-58.Coulton, J.J. (1977) Greek architects at work (Ithaca, New York).Crawford, M. (1978) The Roman Republic (Glasgow).Crook, J.A., Lintott, A., and Rawson, E., eds. (1994) CAH2 ix. The last age of

the Roman Republic, 146-43 BC (Cambridge)Daux, G. (1936) Pausanias a Delphes (Paris).Daux, G. (1975) 'Les empereurs romains et l'amphictionie pyleo-delphique',

CRAL 348-62.Day, J. (1942) An economic history of Athens under Roman domination (New York).Delz, J. (1950) Lukians Kenntnis der Athenischen Antiquitdten (Freiburg).Dewar, M J . (1988) 'Octavian and Orestes in the finale of the first Georgic',

CQ, 81 (n.s. 38): 563-5.Dewar, M J . (1990) 'Octavian and Orestes again', CQ84 (n.s. 40): 580-2.Dihle, A. (1989) Die griechische und lateinische Literatur der Kaiserzeit von Augustus

bis Justinian (Munich).Dihle, A. (1994) Greek and Latin literature of the Roman empire from Augustus to

Justinian (tr. of Dihle (1989), London and New York).Diller, A. (1952) The tradition of the minor Greek geographers (Monograph 14,

American Philological Association).Diller, A. (1955) 'The authors named Pausanias', TAP A 86: 268-79.Diller, A. (1956) 'Pausanias in the Middle Ages', TAP A 87: 84-97.Diller, A. (1957) 'The manuscripts of Pausanias', TAP A 88: 169-88.Dillon, M.PJ. (1993) 'Restoring a manuscript reading at Paus. 9.3.7', ££^87

(n.s. 43): 327-9.Dinsmoor, W.B. (1950) The architecture of ancient Greece (3rd edn, London and

Sydney).Dittenberger, W. and Purgold, K. (1896) Olympia v. Die Inschriften (Berlin).Donohue, A. A. (1988) Xoana and the origins of Greek sculpture (Atlanta, Ga.).Easterling, P.E. and Knox, B.M.W., eds (1985) The Cambridge history of

Classical literature 1 (Cambridge).Ebeling, H.L. (1913) 'Pausanias as an historian', Classical Weekly 7: 138—41,

146-50.Edelstein, EJ . and Edelstein, L. (1945) Asclepius: a collection and interpretation

of the testimonia 1-11 (Baltimore).Eickstedt, K.-V. von (1991) Beitrdge zur Topographie des antiken Pirdus (Athens).Eisner, R. (1991) Travelers to an antique land: the history and literature of travel to

Greece (Ann Arbor).Eliot, C.W.J. (1967) 'The meaning of Episema in Pausanias 1.17.1', Hesperia

36: 121-3.Eisner, J. (1992) 'Pausanias: a Greek pilgrim in the Roman world', Past &

Present 135: 5-29.Eisner, J. (1994) 'From the pyramids to Pausanias and Piglet: monuments,

220 Bib liography

writing and travel', in Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R., eds., Art and text inancient Greek culture (Cambridge), 224-54.

Engels, D. (1990) Roman Corinth: an alternative model for the Classical city (Chicago).Erskine, A. (1994), 'The Romans as common benefactors', Historia 43: 70-87.Fant, J.C. (1993) 'Ideology, gift and trade: a distribution model for the

Roman imperial marbles', in Harris, W.V., ed., The inscribed economy:production and distribution in the Roman empire in the light of the instrumentumdomesticum {JRA suppl. 6), 145—70.

Farnell, L.R. (1896) The cults of the Greek states 1 (Oxford).Fellmann, B. (1972) 'Antiker Sport', in Burck, E., ed. (1972) 100 Jahre

deutsche Ausgrabung in Olympia (Munich), 110-27.Ferrary, J.-L. (1988) Philhellenisme et imperialisme: aspects ideologiques de la

conquete romaine du monde hellenistique, de la seconde guerre de Macedoine a laguerre contre Mithridate (Rome).

Flaceliere, R. (1971) 'Hadrien et Delphes', CRAL 168-85.Flashar, H., ed. (1979) Le classicisme a Rome aux Iers siecles avant et apres J.-C.

(Entretiens xxv, Fondation Hardt, Geneva).Follett, S. (1976) Athenes au He et au Hie siecle: etudes chronologiques et

prosopographiques (Paris).Forte, B. (1972) Rome and the Romans as the Greeks saw them (American

Academy, Rome).Frazer, J .G. (1900) Pausanias and other Greek sketches (London).Frazer, J .G. (1923) Sur les traces de Pausanias a travers la Grece ancienne (tr. of

Frazer (1900), Paris).Frosen, J . (1974) Prolegomena to a study of the Greek language in the 1st centuries AD;

the problem of Koine and Atticism (Helsinki).Gabba, E. (1982) 'Political and cultural aspects of the Classicistic revival in

the Augustan age', Cl. Ant. 1: 43-65.Gallivan, P. (1973) 'Nero's liberation of Greece', Hermes 101: 230-4.Gardner, E.A. (1890) 'The processes of Greek sculpture, as shown by some

unfinished statues in Athens', JHS 11: 129-42.Garland, R. (1987) The Piraeus (London).Garnsey, P. (1988) Famine and food supply in the Graeco-Roman world. Responses to

risk and crisis (Cambridge).Garnsey, P. and Sailer, R. (1987) The Roman empire: economy, society and culture

(London).Gasparri, C. (1974-5) 'Lo stadio Panatenaico. Documenti e testimonianze

per una riconsiderazione dell'edificio di Erode Attico', Annuario 52—3(n.s. 36-7): 313-92.

Geagan, D J . (1979) 'Roman Athens: some aspects of life and culture 1. 86 BC- AD 267', ANRW 11.7.1, 371—437.

Gebhard, E.R. (1993) 'The Isthmian games and the sanctuary of Poseidonin the early empire', in Gregory (1993a), 78-94.

Gelzer, T. (1979) 'Klassizismus, Attizismus und Asianismus', in Flashar

Bibliography 221

Georgiadou, A. and Larmour, D.HJ. (1994) 'Lucian and historiography:"De historia conscribenda" and "Verae historiae'", ANRW 11.34.2,1448-1509.

Giffler, M. (1940) 'Two confirmations of Pausanias', Philologische Wochenschrift60: 474-6.

Goody, J.R. (1977) The domestication of the savage mind (Cambridge).Goody, J.R. and Watt, I. (1968) 'The consequences of literacy' in Goody,

J.R., ed., Literacy in traditional societies (Cambridge), 27-68.Gordon, R.L. (1979) 'The real and the imaginary: production and religion

in the Graeco-Roman world', Art History 2: 5-34.Graf, F. (1992) 'Heiligtum und Ritual: das Beispiel der griechisch-romischen

Asklepieia', in Schachter, A., ed., Le sanctuaire grec (Entretiens xxxvn,Fondation Hardt, Geneva), 159-203.

Graindor, P. (1924) Album d'inscriptions attiques d'epoque imperiale 1-11 (Paris).Graindor, P. (1927) Athenes sous Auguste (Cairo).Graindor, P. (1931) Athenes de Tibere a Trajan (Cairo).Graindor, P. (1934) Athenes sous Hadrien (Cairo).Gregory, T.E., ed. (1993a) The Corinthia in the Roman period (JRA suppl. 8,

Ann Arbor).Gregory, T.E. (1993b) 'An early Byzantine (dark-age) settlement at

Isthmia: preliminary report', in Gregory (1993a), 149-60.Gregory, T.E. and Mills, H. (1984) 'The Roman arch at Isthmia', Hesperia

53- 4O7-45-Griffin, M.T. (1984) Nero: the end of a dynasty (London).Griffin, M.T. (1994) 'The intellectual developments of the Ciceronian age',

in Crook, Lintott, and Rawson (1994), 689-728.Groningen, B.A. van (1965) 'General literary tendencies in the second

century AD', Mnemosyne 18: 41—56.Gros, P. (1978) 'Vie et mort de l'art hellenistique selon Vitruve et Pline',

REL 56: 289-313.Gruen, E.S. (1992) Culture and national identity in Republican Rome (London).Habicht, C. (1985) Pausanias' guide to ancient Greece (California).Habicht, C. (1989) 'Athen und die Seleukiden', Chiron 19: 7-26.Habicht, C. (1990) 'Athens and the Attalids in the second century BG',

Hesperia 59: 561-77.Habicht, C. (1992) 'Athens and the Ptolemies', Cl.Ant. 11: 68-90.Halfmann, H. (1979) Die Senatoren aus dem b'stlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum

bis zum Ende des 2. Jh. n. C^r.(Gottingen).Halfmann, H. (1988) Itinera principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen

im rb'mischen Reich (Stuttgart).Harris, H.A. (1972) Sport in Greece and Rome (London).Harris, W.V. (1980) 'Towards a study of the Roman slave trade', in

D.'Arms, J.H. and Kopff, E.C., eds., The seaborne commerce of ancientRome: studies in archaeology and history, Memoirs of the AmericanAcademy in Rome 36 (Rome), 117—40.

222 Bibliography

Harris, W.V. (1989) Ancient literacy (Cambridge, Mass.).Harrison, E.B. (1953) The Athenian Agora I. Portrait sculpture (Princeton).Harrison, E.B. (1965) The Athenian Agora XL Archaic and archaistic sculpture

(Princeton).Harvey, F.D. (1966) 'Literacy in the Athenian democracy', REG 79:585-635.Haynes, D. (1992) The technique of Greek bronze statuary (Mainz).Heer, J . (1979) La personnalite de Pausanias (Paris).Hejnic, J . (1961) Pausanias the perieget and the archaic history of Arcadia

(Prague).Henig, M., ed. (1983) A handbook of Roman art (Oxford).Hind, J.G.F. (1994), 'Mithridates', in Crook, Lintott, and Rawson (1994),

129-64.Hitzl, K. (1991) Olympische Forschungen XIX. Die kaiserzeitliche Statuenausstattung

des Metroon (Berlin).Hoff, M. (1989a) 'The early history of the Roman Agora at Athens', in

Walker and Cameron (1989), 1—8.Hoff, M. (1989b) 'Civil disobedience and unrest in Augustan Athens',

Hesperia 58: 267-76.Hoff, M. (1994) 'The so-called Agoranomion and the Imperial cult in

Julio-Claudian Athens', AA: 93-117.Hopper, R J . (1952) rev. Delz (1950), CR 66 (n.s. 2): 47-8.Hornblower, S. (1982) Mausolus (Oxford).Hornblower, S., ed. (1994a) Greek Historiography (Oxford).Hornblower, S. (1994b) Introduction to Hornblower (1994a), 1-72.How, W.W. and Wells, J. (1928), A commentary on Herodotus (2nd edn, 2 vols,

Oxford).Howatson, M.C., ed. (1989) The Oxford companion to Classical literature (2nd

edn, Oxford).Hunt, E.D. (1984) 'Travel, tourism and piety in the Roman empire', Echos

du monde classiquejClassical views 28: 391—417.Huxley, G. (1979) 'Bones for Orestes', GRBS 20: 145-8.Huzar, E. (1984) 'Claudius- the erudite emperor', ANRWn.%2.1, 612-50.Isaac, B. (1992) The limits of empire (rev. edn, Oxford).Isager, J . (1991) Pliny on art and society: the elder Pliny's chapters on the history of art

(Odense).Isager, J. (1993) 'Alexander the Great in Roman literature from Pompey to

Vespasian', in Carlsen, J . et al., eds., Alexander the Great: reality and myth(Rome) 75-83.

Jacob, C. (1980) 'The Greek traveler's areas of knowledge: myths and otherdiscourses in Pausanias' description of Greece', Tale French Studies 59:65-85.

Jacob, C. (1980-1) 'Paysages hantes et jardins merveilleux: la Greceimaginaire de Pausanias', L'Ethnographie 1980-1: 35-67.

Jacob, C. (1981) 'L'oeil et la memoire: sur la Periegese de la Terre habitee deDenys', in Jacob, C. and Lestringant, F., eds., Arts et legendes d'espaces:

Bibliography 223

figures du voyage et rhetoriques du monde (Paris), 21-97.Jacoby, F. (1944) Tatrios nomos: state burial in Athens and the public

cemetery in the Kerameikos', JHS 64: 37-66.Jeffery, L.H. (1990) The local scripts of Archaic Greece (2nd edn, rev. Johnston,

A.W. (Oxford)).Jex-Blake, K. and Sellers, E. (1896) The elder Pliny's chapters on the history of art

(London).Jones, B.W. (1992) The emperor Domitian (London).Jones, C.P. (1966) 'Towards a chronology of Plutarch's works', JRS 56:61—74.Jones, C.P. (1971) Plutarch and Rome (Oxford).Jones, C.P. (1972a) 'Aelius Aristides, EII BAIIAEIA', JRS 62: 134-52.Jones, C.P. (1972b) 'Two enemies of Lucian', GRBS 13: 475-87.Jones, C.P. (1978) The Roman world of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, Mass.).Jones, C.P. (1986) Culture and society in Lucian (Harvard).Kahrstedt, U. (1950) 'Die Territorien von Patrai und Nikopolis in der

Kaiserzeit', Historia 1: 549—61.Kaimio, J. (1979) The Romans and the Greek language (Helsinki).Karageorgia-Stathakopoulou, Th. (1976) 'Other sports and games', in

Yalouris (1976), 242-63.Keaveney, A. (1982) Sulla: the last Republican (London).Keaveney, A. and Madden, J.A. (1982) 'Phthiriasis and its victims', Symbolae

Osloenses 57: 87-99.Kennell, N.M. (1988) 'NEPQN T7EPIOAONIKEF, AJP 109: 239-51.Kent, J.H. (1966) Corinth VIII.j. The inscriptions 1926-1930 (Princeton).Kleiner, D.E.E. (1983) The monument of Philopappos in Athens (Rome).Kleingunther, A. (1934) 'TTPQTOIEYPETH2. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte

einer Fragestellung', Philologus suppl. 26: 1 —155.Kraay, C M . (1976) Archaic and Classical Greek coins (London).Kron, U. (1976) Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen, AM Beiheft 5.Kron, U. (1992) 'Heilige Steine' in Froning, H., Holscher, T., Mielsch, H.,

eds., Kotinos. Festschrift fur Erika Simon (Mainz), 56—70.Kyle, D.G. (1987) Athletics in ancient Athens (Leiden).Lane Fox, R. (1986) Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth).Larsen, J. A.O. (1938) 'Roman Greece', in Frank, T., ed., An economic survey of

ancient Rome iv, 259-498 (Baltimore).Larsen, J.A.O. (1958) 'The policy of Augustus in Greece', Ada Classica 1:

123-30.Larsen, J.A.O. (1966) Representative government in Greek and Roman history

(California).Lawrence, A.W. (1983) Greek architecture (revised with additions by R.A.

Tomlinson, 4th edn, Harmondsworth).Leahy, D.M. (1955) 'The bones of Tisamenus', Historia 4: 26-38.Leipen, N. (1971) Athena Parthenos: a reconstruction (Toronto).Lerat, L. (1985) 'Les 'enigmes' de Marmaria', BCH 109: 255-64.LeRoy, C. (1977) 'Pausanias a Marmaria', BCH suppl. 4: 247-71.

224 Bibliography

Levi, P. (1971) Pausanias. Guide to Greece 1-11 (tr., Harmondsworth).Levick, B. (1990) Claudius (London).Levick, B., et ai, eds. (1988) Monuments from the Aezanitis (Monumenta Asiae

Minoris Antiqua ix).Levin, S. (1989) The old Greek oracles in decline', ANRW11.18.2, 1599-1649.Levy, B. (1991) 'When did Nero liberate Achaea and why?', in Rizakis

(1991), 189-4.Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M., eds. (1990a) Roman civilization. Sourcebook I: the

Republic (3rd edn, New York).Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M., eds. (1990b), Roman civilization. Sourcebook II: the

Empire (3rd edn, New York).Lewis, R.G. (1993) 'Imperial autobiography, Augustus to Hadrian', ANRW

11.34.1, 629-706.Librale, D. (1994) 'L'Eis |3a(7iAsa' dello pseudo-Aristide e l'ideologia

traianea', ANRW 11.34.2, I 2 7 I ~ I 3 I 3 -Ling, R. (1991) Roman painting (Cambridge).Lintott, A.W. (1972) 'Imperial expansion and moral decline in the Roman

Republic', Historia 21: 626-38.Lippold, G. (1956) 'Zweite Sophistik', RE suppl. 8: 720-82.Luttwak, E.N. (1976) The grand strategy of the Roman Empire from the first century

AD to the third (Baltimore).Maass, M. (1972) Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen (Munich).MacMullen, R. (1959) 'Roman imperial building in the provinces', HSCP

64: 207-35.Macready S. and Thompson F.S., eds. (1987) Roman architecture in the Greek

world (The Society of Antiquaries, occasional papers 10, London).Magie, D. (1950) Roman rule in Asia Minor 1-2 (Princeton).Mallwitz, A. (1972) Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich).Martin, R. (1974) UUrbanisme dans la Grece antique (2nd edn, Paris).Mattusch, C.C. (1988) Greek bronze statuary from the beginning through the fifth

century BG (Cornell).McCredie, J.R. (1971) 'Hippodamos of Miletos', in Mitten, D.G., Pedley,

J.G., Scott, J.A., eds., Studies presented to G.M.A. Hanfmann (Cambridge,Mass.), 95-100.

Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D.M. (1988) A selection of Greek historical inscriptions tothe end of the fifth century BG (2nd edn, Oxford).

Mellor, R. (1975) 0EA PQMH. The worship of the goddess Roma (Gottingen).Meyer, H. (1991) Antinoos (Munich).Michel, A. (1993) 'Rhetorique et philosophic au second siecle ap. J . - C ,

AJVRW 11.34.1, 3-78.Millar, F. (1964) A study of Cassius Dio (Oxford).Millar, F. (1977) The emperor in the Roman world (London).Millar, F. (1987) Introduction to Macready and Thompson (1987), ix-xv.Millett, M. (1990) The Romanization of Britain (Cambridge).Mitchell, S. (1987a) 'Imperial building in the eastern Roman provinces', in

Bibliography 225

Macready and Thompson (1987), 18-25.Mitchell, S. (1987b) 'Imperial building in the eastern Roman provinces',

HSCP 91: 333-65-Mitchell, S. (1990) 'Festivals, games and civic life in Roman Asia Minor',

JRS 80: 183-93.Momigliano, A. (1975) Alien wisdom: the limits of Hellenization (Cambridge).Morford, M. (1985) 'Nero's patronage and participation in literature and

the arts', ANRW \i.<$2.% 2003-31.Morgan, C. and Whitelaw, T. (1991) 'Pots and politics: ceramic evidence for

the rise of the Argive state', AJA 95: 79-108.Morris, S.P. (1992) Daidalos and the origins of Greek art (Princeton).Munn, M.H. (1993) The defense of Attica: the Dema wall and the Boiotian war of

378-375 BG (California).Musti, D. (1987), Introduction to Beschi and Musti (1987), ix-lv.Musti, D. and Torelli, M. (1991) Pausania guida della Grecia iv. La Messenia

(Rome).Mylonas, G.E. (1962) Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton).Nesselrath, H.G. (1990) 'Lucian's introductions', in Russell (1990a), 111-40.Norenberg, H.-W. (1973) 'Untersuchungen zum Schluss der fTepir)yr|ais TTJS

'EAA&80S des Pausanias', Hermes 101: 225-52.Oikonomides, A.N. (i960) 'KpiTiKd eis Ffauaaviav', FlAon-cov 23/24: 49-54.Oliver, J.H. (1940) 'Julia Domna as Athena Polias',//SCPsuppl. 1:521-30.Oliver, J.H. (1951) rev. Delz (1950), AJP 62: 216-19.Oliver, J.H. (1965) 'The Athens of Hadrian', in Piganiol and Terrasse

(1965), 123-33.Oliver, J .H . (1970) Marcus Aurelius. Aspects of civic and cultural policy in the east,

Hesperia suppl. 13.Oliver, J.H. (1972a) 'The conversion of the Periegete Pausanias', in

Homenaje a A. Tovar (Madrid), 319—21.Oliver, J.H. (1972b) 'On the Hellenic policy of Augustus and Agrippa in 27

BC', AJP 93: 190-7.Oliver, J.H. (1981) 'Roman emperors and Athens', Historia 30: 412-23.Oliver, J .H . (1983) The civic tradition and Roman Athens (Baltimore).Packard, P.M. (1980) 'A monochrome mosaic at Isthmia', Hesperia 31: 326-46.Page, D.L. (1951) Alcman: the Partheneion (Oxford).Palm, J . (1959) Rom, Rb'mertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der

Kaiserzeit (Lund).Papadopoulos,J. (1980) Xoanaesphyrelata: testimonianzadellefontiscritte (Rome).Papapostolou, J . (1986) 'Aedes Augustalium GTT\V n&Tpoc', Aco5covr| 15:

261-84.Parker, R. (1983) Miasma: pollution and purification in early Greek religion (Oxford).Paul, G.M. (1982) 'Urbs capta: a sketch of an ancient literary motif, Phoenix

3 6 : J44-55-Pearson, L. (i960) 'Pausanias on the temple of Poseidon at Isthmia (2,1,7)',

Hermes 88: 498-502.

226 Bibliography

Pearson, L. (1962) 'The pseudo-history of Messenia and its authors', Historia11: 397-426.

Pelling, C. (1990) 'Truth and fiction in Plutarch's Lives', in Russell (1990a),19-52.

Peppas-Delmousou, D. (1979) 'A statue base for Augustus', AJP 100: 125-32.Pfundtner, O. (1866) Pausaniasperiegeta imitator Herodoti (diss., Konigsberg).Philipp, H. and Koenigs, W. (1979) 'Zu den Basen des L. Mummius in

Olympia', AM 94: 193-216.Pietila-Castren, L. (1978) 'Some aspects of the life of Lucius Mummius

Achaicus', Arctos 12: 115-23.Pietila-Castren, L. (1982) 'New men and the Greek war booty in the 2nd

century BG', Arctos 16: 121-43.Piganiol, A. and Terrasse, H. (1965) Les empereurs romains d'Espagne (Paris).Pollitt, J.J. (1974) The ancient view of Greek art: criticism, history, and terminology

(Yale).Pollitt, J.J. (1978) 'The impact of Greek art on Rome', TAPA 108: 155-74.Pollitt, J.J. (1983) The art of Rome c.753 B.C. - A.D. 337: sources and documents

(Cambridge).Pollitt, J.J. (1986) Art in the Hellenistic age (Cambridge).Pollitt, J.J. (1990) The art of ancient Greece: sources and documents (Cambridge).Pouilloux, J. (1980) 'Delphes et les Romains', in ZTHAH. Touos eis uvf)ur|v N.

KOVTOAEOVTOS (Athens).Preisshofen, F. (1979) 'Kunsttheorie und Kunstbetrachtung', in Flashar

(1979), 263-82.Preller, L., ed. (1838, reprinted 1964) Polemonisperiegetaefragmenta (Amster-

dam).Premerstein, A. von (1912) 'Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers

Marcus. 11', Klio 12, 139-78.Price, S.R.F. (1984a) Rituals and power: the Roman Imperial cult in Asia Minor

(Cambridge).Price, S.R.F. (1984b) 'Gods and emperors: the Greek language of the

Roman imperial cult', JHS 104: 79—95.Raubitschek, A.E. (1945) 'Hadrian as the son of Zeus Eleutherios', AJA 49:

128-33.Raubitschek, A.E. (1949) Dedications from the Athenian Acropolis (Cambridge,

Mass.).Reardon,B. (1971) Courants litteraires grecs du He et Hie siecles apres J.-C. (Paris).Regenbogen, O. (1956) 'Pausanias', RE suppl. 8: 1008-97.Reitzenstein, R. (1894) 'Zu den Pausanias-Scholien', Hermes 29: 231-9.Reynolds, J. (1982) Aphrodisias and Rome (London, Society for the Promotion

of Roman Studies, Monograph 1).Reynolds, L.D. and Wilson, N.G. (1991) Scribes and scholars: a guide to the

transmission of Greek and Latin literature (3rd edn, Oxford).Richter, G.M.A. (1970) Kouroi (London and New York).Ridgway, B.S. (1970) The severe style in Greek sculpture (Princeton).

Bibliography 227

Ridgway, B.S. (1984) Roman copies of Greek sculpture: the problem of the originals(Ann Arbor, Michigan).

Ridgway, B.S. (1990) Hellenistic sculpture I. The styles of ca. 331-200 BC (Bristol).Ridgway, B.S. (1991) 'The bronze Granikos group of Alexander and the

companions at the Porticus Octaviae', rev. G. Calcani (1989) Cavalieridi bronzo. La torma di Alessandro opera di Lisippo (Rome), JRA 4: 206-9.

Ridgway, B.S. (1993) The archaic style in Greek sculpture (2nd edn, Chicago).Rizakis, A.D. (1989) 'La colonie romaine de Patras en Achaie: le temoignage

epigraphique', in Walker and Cameron (1989), 180-6.Rizakis, A.D., ed. (1991) 'Apxcuoc'Axotfoc Kai'HAsia Achaia undElis in der Antike

(Athens).Rizakis, A.D., ed. (1992) Paysages d}Achaie I: le bassin du Epeiros et la plaine

occidentale (Athens).Robert, C. (1909) PausaniasalsSchriftsteller: StudienundBeobachtungen (Berlin).Robert, L. (1937) Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris).Robert, L. (1980) A travers VAsie Mineure (Paris).Robinson, D.M. (1910) rev. Robert (1909), AJP 31: 213-22.Robinson, D.M. (1944) 'A plea for Pausanias', Classical Weekly 37: 165-6.Rocha-Pereira, M.H. (1965-6) 'Sobre a importancia das informac.oes de

Pausanias para a historia da lingua grega', Humanitas 17-18: 180-97.Rodgers, G.M. (1991) rev. Cartledge and Spawforth (1989), JRS 81: 203-4.Rolley, C. (1986) Greek bronzes (London).Romano, D.G. (1985) 'The Panathenaic stadium and theater of Lykourgos:

a re-examination of the facilities on the Pnyx hill', AJA 89: 441-54.Roueche, C. (1989) 'Floreat Perge', in Mackenzie, M.M. and Roueche, C ,

eds., Images of authority: papers presented to Joyce Reynolds on the occasion of heryoth birthday (Cambridge, Philological Society), 206—28.

Roux, G. (1958) Pausanias en Corinthie (Paris).Roy, J. (1968) 'The sons of Lycaon in Pausanias' Arcadian King-list', BSA

63: 287-92.Rudich, V. (1993) Political dissidence under Nero: the price of dissimulation (London).Riiger, A. (1889) Die Prdpositionen bei Pausanias. Beitrag zur historischen Syntax

der griechischen Sprache (diss., (Erlangen) Bamberg).Russell, D.A. (1983) Greek declamation (Cambridge).Russell, D.A., ed. (1990a) Antonine literature (Oxford).Russell, D.A. (1990b), Introduction to Russell (1990a), 1-18.Russell, D.A. and Wilson, N.G. (1981) Menander Rhetor (Oxford).Salmon, J. (1977) 'Political hoplites?', JHS 97: 84-101.Salowey, C.A. (1994) 'Herakles and the waterworks: Mycenaean dams,

Classical fountains, Roman aqueducts', in Sheedy, K.A., ed., Archaeologyin the Peloponnese: new excavations and research (Oxford), 77—94.

Schmid, W. (1887—97, repr. 1964) Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern vonDionysius von Halikarnass bis aufden zweiten Philostratus i-v (Hildesheim).

Schubart, A. (1866) 'Die Worter EIKCOV, £6OCVOV, &v5pias und verwandte, inihren verschiedenen Beziehungen. Nach Pausanias', Philologus 24:561-87.

228 Bibliography

Seager, R. (1994) 'Sulla', in Crook, Lintott, and Rawson (1994), 165-207.Segre, M. (1927) Tausanias come fonte storica', Historia 1: 202-34.Seiler, F. (1986) Die griechische Tholos (Mainz).Settis, S. (1968) 'II ninfeo di Erode Attico a Olimpia e il problema della

composizione della Periegesi di Pausania', Annuario della Scuola NormaleSuperiore di Pisa 37: 1-63.

Shear, T.L. (1933) 'Excavations in the Athenian Agora. The sculpture',Hesperia 2: 178-83.

Shear, T.L. Jr. (1970) 'The monument of the Eponymous Heroes in theAthenian Agora', Hesperia 39: 145-222.

Shear, T.L. Jr. (1971) 'The Athenian Agora: excavations of 1970', Hesperia40: 241-79.

Shear, T.L. Jr. (1973) 'The Athenian Agora: excavations of 1971', Hesperia42: 131-79.

Shear, T.L. Jr. (1981) 'Athens: from city-state to provincial town', Hesperia

Shear, T.L. Jr . (1994) "ICTOVOUOUS T' 'AOrjvas hrorncraTnv: the Agora and theDemocracy', in W.D.E. Coulson et al., eds., The archaeology of Athens andAttica under the democracy (Oxford), 225—48.

Sherk, R.K. (1969) Roman documents from the Greek East (Baltimore).Sherk, R.K., ed. (1988) The Roman Empire. Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge).Sihler, E.G. (1905) 'On the personality of Pausanias the Periegete', TAP A

30: xxxi—ii.Sinn, U. (1991) " ' 0 NEPQNAS" KOCI 01 EPOYAOI": 5uo uoipocioc yeyovoTa

CJTT]V ioropia TTJS OAuuTTias;', in Rizakis (1991), 365-71.Smith, R.R.R. (1991) Hellenistic sculpture (London).Snodgrass, A.M. (1987) An archaeology of Greece: the present state and future scope

of a discipline (California).Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1990) rev. Donohue (1988), CR 104 (n.s. 40): 129-31.Spawforth, A.J.S. (1984) rev. Ameling (1983), Kleiner (1983) and other

books, JRS 74: 214-17.Spawforth, A.J.S. (1989) 'Agonistic festivals in Roman Greece', in Walker

and Cameron (1989), 193-7.Spawforth, A.J.S. (1992) rev. Willers (1990), CR 106 (n.s. 42): 372-4.Spawforth, A.J.S. (1994a) 'Corinth, Argos, and the Imperial cult. Pseudo-

Julian, Letters 198', Hesperia 63: 211-32.Spawforth, A.J.S. (1994b) 'Symbol of unity? The Persian-Wars tradition in

the Roman Empire', in Hornblower (1994a), 233—47.Spawforth, A.J.S. (forthcoming) 'Le berceau' in Bowie, E.L. and Said, S.

(forthcoming) VAthenes des Antonins (Paris).Spawforth, A.J.S. and Walker, S. (1985). 'The world of the Panhellenion 1.

Athens and Eleusis', JRS 75: 78-104.Spawforth, A.J.S. and Walker, S. (1986) 'The world of the Panhellenion 11.

Three Dorian cities', JRS 76: 88-105.Stanzl, G. (1993) 'Das sogenannte Ptolemaion in Limyra - Ergebnisse der

Bib liography 229

Ausgrabungen 1984-9', in Borchhardt, J. and Dobesch, G., eds., Aktendes II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions 1-11 (Vienna), 11.183-90.

Stertz, S.A. (1979) 'Pseudo-Aristides, EIIBAIIAEIA', CQj<$ (n.s. 29): 172-9.Stertz, S.A. (1993) 'Semper in omnibus varius: the emperor Hadrian and

intellectuals', AJVRW 11.34.1, 612-28.Stewart, A. (1978) 'The canon of Polykleitos: a question of evidence', JHS

98: 122-31.Stewart, A. (1979) Attika: studies in Athenian sculpture of the Hellenistic age

(London).Stewart, A. (1990a) Greek sculpture: an exploration (Yale).Stewart, A. (1990b) rev. Donohue (1988), AJA 94: 158-9.Stewart, A. (1993) Faces of power: Alexander's image and Hellenistic politics

(California).Stockton, D.L. (1984) rev. Keaveney (1982) CR 98 (n.s. 34): 348-9.Stone, S.C. (1985) 'The imperial sculptural group in the Metroon at

Olympia', AM 100: 377-91.Strid, O. (1976) Uber Sprache und Stil des Periegeten Pausanias (Uppsala).Strong, D.E. (1973) 'Roman museums', in D.E. Strong, ed., Archaeological

theory and practice: essays presented to W.F. Grimes (London), 247—64.Strong, D.E. (1976) Roman art (Harmondsworth).Stuart Jones, H. (1895) Select passages from ancient writers illustrative of the history

of Greek sculpture (London), revised by A.N. Oikonomides (Chicago 1966).Sturgeon, M.C. (1977) 'The reliefs on the theater of Dionysos in Athens',

AJA 81: 31-53.Sturgeon, M.C. (1987) Isthmia IV. Sculpture I: igj2 - ig6y (Princeton).Swain, S. (1991) 'Plutarch, Hadrian, and Delphi', Historia 40: 318-30.Syme, R. (1939) The Roman revolution (Oxford).Syme, R. (1965) 'Hadrian the intellectual', in Piganiol and Terrasse (1965),

243-53-Syme, R. (1985) 'Hadrian as philhellene. Neglected aspects', in Straub, J.,

ed., Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium ig82-8j (Bonn), 341-62.Szelest, H. (1953) De Pausaniae clausulis (Warsaw).Taylor, T. (1794) The description of Greece, by Pausanias. Translated from the

Greek. With notes, in which much of the Mythology of the Greeks is unfolded froma Theory which has been for many Ages unknown (London).

Thomas, R. (1989) Oral tradition and written record in Classical Athens (Cambridge).Thomas, R. (1992) Literacy and orality in ancient Greece (Cambridge).Thompson, H.A. (1961) 'The Panathenaic festival', AA 76: 224-31.Thompson, H.A. (1962) 'Itinerant temples of Attica', AJA 66: 200.Thompson, H.A. (1976) The Athenian Agora (3rd edn, American School of

Classical Studies, Athens).Thompson, H.A. (1987) 'The impact of Roman architects and architecture

on Athens: 170 BG - AD I 70', in Macready and Thompson (1987), 1 -17.Thompson, H.A. and Wycherley, R.E. (1972) The Athenian Agora XIV. The

Agora of Athens (Princeton).

230 Bibliography

Tobin, J. (1991) The monuments of Herodes Atticus (diss., University ofPennsylvania, University microfilms international, Ann Arbor, Michi-gan).

Tobin, J. (1993) 'Some new thoughts on Herodes Atticus's tomb, hisstadium of 143/4, a n d Philostratus VS 2.550', AJA 97: 81-9.

Trapp, M.B. (forthcoming) 'Philosophical sermons: the "Dialexeis" ofMaximus of Tyre', ANRW 11.34.

Travlos, J. (1971) A pictorial dictionary of ancient Athens (London).Travlos, J. (1988) Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika (Tubingen).Tsavari, I.O. (1990) Aiovucnou 'AA£̂ dv5pecos OiKouusvris Tlepif|yr|CTis (Ioan-

nina).Tzifopoulos, Y.Z. (1993) 'Mummius' dedications at Olympia and Pausanias'

attitude to the Romans', GRBS 34: 93-100.Vanderpool, E. (1959) 'Athens honors the emperor Tiberius', Hesperia 28:

86-90.Vermeule, C.C. (1968) Roman Imperial art in Greece and Asia Minor (Cambridge,

Mass.).Veyne, P. (1988) Did the Greeks believe in their myths? An essay on the constitutive

imagination (Chicago).Wace, AJ.B. (1954) 'Pausanias and Mycenae', in Lullies, R., ed., Festschrift

B. Schweitzer (Stuttgart), 19-26.Walker, A.D. (1993) 'Enargeia and the spectator in Greek historiography',

TAP A 123: 353-77.Walker, S. (1984) rev. Kleiner (1983), JHS 104: 252.Walker, S. (1987) 'Roman nymphaea in the Greek world', in Macready and

Thompson (1987), 60-71.Walker, S. (1989) rev. Boatwright (1987), JRA 2: 221.Walker, S. and Cameron, A., eds. (1989) The Greek Renaissance in the Roman

Empire, BICS suppl. 55.Walsh, J. (1986) 'The date of the Athenian stoa at Delphi', A JA 90: 319-36.Walsh, M. (1980) An illustrated history of the Popes (London).Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1981) Roman imperial architecture (2nd edn, Harmon-

dsworth).Waywell, G.B. and Wilkes, J J . (1994) 'Excavations at Sparta: the Roman

stoa, 1988-91. Part 2', BSA 89: 377-432.Webb, R.H. (1992) The transmission of the Eikones of Philostratos and the

development o/Ekphrasis/rom late Antiquity to the Renaissance (unpublishedPhD thesis, London, Warburg Institute).

Webb, R.H. (forthcoming) 'Imagination and the arousal of the emotions inGreco-Roman rhetoric', in Braund, S. and Gill, C. The passions in Romanthought and literature (Cambridge).

Wells, C. (1992) The Roman Empire (2nd edn, London).Wilkes, J J . (1991) rev. Cartledge and Spawforth (1989), JRA 4: 231-4.Willers, D. (1989) 'The redesigning of Athens under Hadrian', in Walker

and Cameron (1989), 9.

Bibliography 231

Willers, D. (1990) Hadrianspanhellenisches Programm: Archdologische Beitrdge zurNeugestaltung Athens durch Hadrian (Basle).

Williams, C.K. II (1975) 'Corinth 1974: Forum Southwest', Hesperia 44: 25-9.Williams, C.K. II (1987) 'The refounding of Corinth: some Roman religious

attitudes', in Macready and Thompson (1987), 26—37.Williams, C.K. II (1989) 'A re-evaluation of Temple E and the west end of

the Forum of Corinth', in Walker and Cameron (1989), 156-62.Wiseman, J. (1978) The land of the ancient Corinthians (Goteborg).Wiseman, J. (1979) 'Corinth and Rome 228 BC - AD 267', ANRW 11.7.1,

438-548.Woodman, A. (1988) Rhetoric in Classical historiography (London).Worrle, M. (1992) 'Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi 1', Chiron 22: 337—76.Wycherley, R.E. (1957) The Athenian Agora III. Literary and epigraphical

testimonia (Princeton).Wycherley, R.E. (1959) 'Pausanias in the Agora of Athens', GRBS 2: 23-44.Wycherley, R.E. (1962) How the Greeks built cities (2nd edn, London).Wycherley, R.E. (1963) Tausanias at Athens, 11. A commentary on Book 1,

chapters 18-19', GRBS 4: 157-75.Wycherley, R.E. (1964a) 'The Olympieion at Athens', GRBS 5: 161-79.Wycherley, R.E. (1964b) 'Hippodamus and Rhodes', Historia 13: 135-9.Wycherley, R.E., (1982) 'Pausanias and Praxiteles', Studies in Athenian

architecture, sculpture and topography, Hesperia suppl. 20. (Princeton) 182-91.Yalouris, N. (1968) 'The mosaic pavement of the temple of Zeus at

Olympia', AAA 1: 78-82.Yalouris, N., ed. (1976) Athletics in ancient Greece: ancient Olympia and the

Olympic games (Athens).Yegiil, F.K. (1993) 'The Roman baths at Isthmia in their Mediterranean

context', in Gregory (1993a), 95-113.Zagdoun, M.-A. (1989) La sculpture archaisante dans Vart hellenistique (Paris).Zahrnt, M. (1979) Ktistes - conditor - restitutor: Untersuchungen zur Stddtepolitik

des Kaisers Hadrian (diss., Kiel).Zanker, P. (1988) The Power of images in the age of Augustus (Ann Arbor).

Index of Pausanias passages cited

1.1.2:77 n.78 1-24.3:481.1.5:71 1.24.7:1631.2.4:42 1.25.8:1921.2.5: 52 1.26.4: 81.3.1: 52 1.26.7: 461.3.2: 166, 167, 210 1.27.1: 55, 70, 741.3.3: 18 1.28.1: 641.5: 166, 168 1.28.5: 491.5.1: 52 1.28.10: 1781.5.2: 169 1.29.7: 2041.5.4: 43 1.31.4: 1991.5.5: 169, 170, 171, 210 1-32.5: 51 n.221.6.1: 39 n.108, 170 1.33.2-3: 51 n.211.7.3: 170 i-334: 871.8.1: 170 I-34-2: 51 n.221.8.4: 130 i-35-3: 53 n-281.8.5: 116 1.36.3: 12, 25, 161, 181, 1841.9.8: 105 i-37-7: 4 8 n-!51.12.4: 52 1.38.2: 171.14.1: 130 1.38.7: 76, 991-14-2: 5 6 i-39-3: 44 n-31.14.3: 76 1.40.2: 1821.14.7: 51 n.21 1.40.4: 52 n.251.15.4: 53 1.40.6: 641.18.3: 126 1.41.6: 56, 651.18.4: 172 1.42.4: 661.18.5: 54, 65 i-42-5: 53 n-28, 182, 1831.18.6: 51, 172, 174, 211 J-43-5: 51 n.21, 56, 661.18.6-9: 51, 172, 175 1.43.6: 631.18.9: 171, 175, 176, 177 1.43.8: 651.19.1: 178 1.44.2: 501.19.6: 196 1.44.6: 51, 182, 2111.20.3: 521.20.4: 89, 100, 105, 206 2.1.2: 94, no, 112, 114, 131, 204-51.20.5: 100, 207 2.1.5: 151, 2091.20.6: 22, 102 2.1.7: 41, 198, 2111.20.7: 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 142, 206, 211 2.2.2: 107, n o1.21.5: 52, 190 2.2.6: no, 1121.22.4: 51 n.22 2.2.6-7: n o1.23.1: 173 2.2.8: 51 n.211.23.7: 29 2.3.1: 4, 108, in, 114, 126, 129, 172, 205

232

Index of Pausanias passages cited 2332.3.5: in, 184, 1932.3.6: 111, 1982.3.7: 110, 112, 1142.4.1: 51 n.22, 52 n.252.4.5: 51 n.22, 54, 56, 68, 762.7.5: 51 n.22, 65 n.562.7.9: 65 n.562.10.1: 632.10.7: 51 n.222.11.2: 51 n.222.11.6: 542.13.3: 44 n.32.15.1: 712.17.3: 5, 106, 1262.17.4: 522.17.5: 53 n.28, 562.17.6: 148, 185, 211

2-19-3: 552.20.1: 51 n.222.20.3: 65 n.562.21.4: 51 n.222.22.5: 53 n.28, 57, 712.23.4: 51 n.222.24.5: 51 n.222.25.8: 592.26.9: 402.27.2: 522.27.3: 125

2-27-5̂ 432.27.6-7: 41, 189, 1942.29.1: 51 n.212.29.6: 51 n.222.30.1: 542.30.2: 572.31.3: 51 n.222.31.4: 492.32.5: 572.34.11: 51 n.222.35.3: 51 n.212.36.3: 51 n.222.37-5: H 3

3.3.6-7: 77 n.773.3.8: 52, 77 n.773.7.11:893.11.1: 44 n.33.11.3: 131 n.783.11.4: 94-5, 114, 115, 123, 129, 131, 205,

2073.12.4: 653.12.10: 152 n.343.14.1: 51 n.22, 1303.16.7-11: 25, 663.17.6:713.20.10: 65

3.21.6: 132, 1333.22.1: 30, 49-503.22.7: 52 n.253.22.9: 1343.26.7: 132

4.1.1: 1324.6.1-5: 194.30.2: 1324.31.2: 1324.31.6: 51 n.214.31.10: 43, 474.31.11: 52 n.254.32.2: 1944.34.4-6: 304.34.7: 644-35-i: 1574.35.2: 2104-35-3: 1574.35.5: 204

5.1.2: 37, 112, 1145-5-6: 515.6.6: 51 n.215.7.9: 605.10.1: 68, 99, 144, 2095.10.2: 855.10.3: 51 n.215.10.5: 89, 96, 211

5-11:855.11.10: 51 nn.21-25.12.4: 1265.12.6: 42, 51 n.21, 157, 163, 185, 2105.12.7: 52, 127, 1855.12.8: 148, 2115.14.10: 1765.16.1: 53 and n.285.17.1: 475.17.2-3: 725.17.3: 47, 585.17.4: 120 n.425.17.5: 53 n.285.17.5-19.10: 165.20.1-2: 625.20.2: 62, 1585.20.9: 87, 88, 120, 1855.20.9-10: 120 n.425.20.10: 515.21.1: 44 n.35.21.2: 40

5-21-3: 585.21.15: 405.22.3: 29, 31, 735.23.3: 62, 1375.24.4: 95-6, 211

234 Index of Pausanias passages cited

5.25.1: 37, 106, 112, 114,211 7.22.9: 136, 2085-25-5: 6 2 7-23-5: 5 2 n-255.25.9: 147 7-23-9: 51 n-22, 54 n.305.25.11: 61 7-25-7: 53 n-275.26.3: 147 7-25-9: 51 n-2i5.27.12: 58 n.46 7.26.4: 51 n.21, 52 n.25

7.26.6: 636.1.2: 44 n.36.3.10: 57 8.2.1: 1666.10.4: 58 8.2.5: 1216.16.4: 165, 210 8.8.7-8: 526.18.7: 53 n.28 8.8.11: 1856.19.6: 53 n.28 8.8.12: 132, 1856.19.8: 53 nn.26, 28 8.9.3-4: 776.19.9: 184 8.9.6: 1326.19.12: 53 n.28, 65 8.9.7-8: 1866.19.14: 72 8.10.2: 17, 41, 1866.20.9: 51 n.22 8.16.5: 88, 1166.20.11: 51 8.17.2: 536.20.14: 48 8.17.4: 2026.21.2: 51 n.21, 198, 211 8.19.1: 1846.24.6: 52 n.25 8.22.3: in, 1846.25.4: 52 n.25 8.24.12: 51 n.22

8.25.6: 51 n.21, 52 n.257.1.8: 77 8.26.7: 437.4.4: 68 8.27.1: 2027.4.4-5: 56 n.40 8.28.1: 51 n.217-5-5- 37, 55 8.29.3: 82, 115, 1527.5.9: 40, 47, 51 n.22, 53 n.27 8.30.6: 887.7.7-8: 203 8.30.10: 51 n.217.7-17.4: 19 8.31.6: 52 n.257.8.1-2: 92 8.36.6: 367.8.2: 81 n.4, 203 8.37.12: 51 n.22, 53 n.277.8.5: 25 8.40.1: 617.10.5: 90 8.42.3: 53 n.277.10.10-12: 203 8.43: 1887.15.6: 212 8.43.4: 87, 1897.15.9: 81 8.43.6: 189-907.16.6-7 : 90 8.46.1: 1877.16.8: 20, 92, 93, 97 8.46.1-4: 1287.16.9: 204 8.46.1-47.3: 767.16.10: 97, 205 8.46.2: 68, 80, 2097.17.1: 90, 93, 140, 142, 203 8.46.3: 53 n.277.17.2: 89, 93 8.46.4: 52, 1497.17.3-4: 140, 155, 205 8.47.1: 51 n.217.17.5: 134 8.48.6: 49 n.167.18.5: 134 8.48.8: 51 n.227.18.7: 134, 135 8.51.3: 257.18.9: 137 8.51.8: 77n.787.20.6: 37, 40, 196 8.53.8: 567.20.9: 51 n.22 8.53.11: 53 n.287.22.1: 134 8.54.4: 77 n.777.22.4: 497.22.5: 136, 208 9-l-lT- lll7.22.6: 51 n.22, 134, 135 9-2.5: 51 n.22

Index of Pausanias passages cited 2359.2.7: 43, 51 n.219-3-2: 569.3.7: 56 n.419.4.1: 51 n.21, 52 n.259.6.4: 1029.6.6: 979.7.2: 1059.7.4: 1019-7-5: 93, 97, 1029-9-1: 599.10.2: 629.10.3: 53 n.289.11.4: 699.11.6: 51 n.219.12.2: 659.12.4: 53, 709.16.3: 659.18.2: 48 n.159.19.3: 4811.159.19.6: 51 n.22

9-!9-7: 779.20.4: 51 n.219.21.1: 2029.24.3: 49, 509.25.3: 51 n.219.27.1: 489.27.3: 51 n.21, 146, 2089.27.3-4: 84, 86, 1449.27.4: 2099.29.8: 779.30.1: 104, 2119.30.3: 45, 679.32.1: 529.33.6: 102, 104-5, X37> r42>9-36-5: 89-39-3-4: 99 n.459.39.8: 69, 709.39.9: 51 n.22

9.40.3: 51 n.22, 699.40.11-41.1: 639.41.1: 729-4I-7: 53

10.4.4: 51 and n.2110.5.5-6: 17610.5.13: 41 n.112, 18610.7.1: 129, 144, 147, 20910.8.3: 137, 20810.8.6: 12510.9.2: 44 and n.310.11.6: 7410.16.1: 18, 4610.17.4: 7010.18.6: 4710.19.2: 14710.21.5: 10110.22.3-7: 2010.24.6: 5010.25.1-31.12: 1610.32.1: 51 n.21, 131, 19710.32.6: 6010.33.4: 51 n.2110.34.5: 19010.35.1-2: l 8 8

10.35.2: 21210.35.4: 18810.35.6: 177, 188, 21110.35.10: 51 and n.2110.36.3: 51 n.2210.36.6: 20310.36.8: 48 n.1510.38.4: 136, 20810.38.5: 6510.38.6: 7210.38.7: 4810.38.9: 135

Index of other authors and passages cited

AELIANVH

12.61: 36

AELIUS ARISTIDES2, II n.23, l6, 26, I l 6 n.25,

AESCHINES14

AESCHYLUS4611.7

ALKMANfr. 1.31: 51 n.21

APOLLODOROSLibrary

3.14.1: 55 n.37

APPIANBC

I.IO5: IO52.70: I 15 n.232.IO7-8: II52.I50: 115

Maced.7: J34

Mith.30: 9936: 10538: 100-138-9: 10540: 10061: 99

APULEIUSMet.

10.18: 90

ARISTOPHANESKnights

977-80: 168 n.92

Peace1180-4: 168 n.92

ARISTOTLEPoetics

1 n.138 3.5: 46 n.74.16: 46 n.75.4-6: 46 n.7

Politics2.5.1-5: 46 n.87.10.4: 46 n.8

ATHENAIOSDeip.

1.1 .e: 214

AURELIUS VICTORde Caesaribus

14.1.3: 15

CALLIMACHUSEpigrams

25: 12Iambi

fr. 194.66-8 55 n.37Hekale

fr. 260.24-6: 55 n.37

CASSIUS DIO33 n.89, 116 n.25

44.10.1: 11547.20.4: 11650.15.2: 98 n.4051.1.2: 120-151.1.3: 13751.4.1: 12254.9.10: 12254.7.2: 123

54-7-3: ^ 357.8.1: 82 n.559.28.I: I5059-28.3: 84

236

Index of other authors and passages cited 23759.28.4: 8560.6.8: 86, 87 n.11760.11.5: 87 n. 1762.16.1-2 15263.8.3: 14463.14.1: 15063.14.2: 14863.14.3: 14363-20.5: 153 n.3669.4.1: 4269.10.2: 16069.11.2-3: 160

DOURIS OF SAMOS22

EPICHARMUS4611.7

EURIPIDESTroades

1074: 54 n.33

HEKATAIOS OF MILETOSPeriodos Ges

CHARAX OF PERGAMON13

CICERO16, 31de Nat. Deorum

3.49: 98 n.41de Vir. Illust

60Of.

2.22: 913.46: 90-1

Orator37: 21

Verr.2.50: 912-55: 91

CLAUDIUS PTOLEMAEUS23 n-57

DIO CHRYSOSTOM16

Or.31.9: 12731.148: 44 n.4, 147, 15031.148-9: 145, 146

PS. DIO CHRYSOSTOM [FAVORINUS]Or.

37-26: 95

DIODORUS SICULUS4-77~9: 56 n.4016.23: 102

DIONYSIOS OF HALIKARNASSOSOn Thucydides

5- 11

23Genealogiai

23, 66

HERAKLEIDES OF CRETE23 n-57

HERODOTOS23, 24, 26, 3O, 31, 34, 55 n.34, 71

I-5-3-4: 91.6: 601.25: 18, 461.51: 1031.66: 771.67-8: 77 n.771.183.3: 172-53: 455.66: 1695.69: 1696.75: 1057.164: 617.170: 56 n.40

HESIOD45> 59> 67, 214Catalogue of Women

66Theog.

66Theog.

497-5oo: 50Works and Days

141

HIMERIOSOrationes

3.12: 42

HIPPOKRATIC CORPUSMul.

2.185: 51 n.21

DIONYSIOS THE PERIEGETE9> 23 n.57

HISTORIA AUGUSTA ( H A )159 n.58, l80

Index of other authors and passages cited

HA Ant.5-5: 189

HA Hadr.1.5: 15913.5: 16020.4-5: 160, 18020.13: 160 n.6o

h.Cer.480-2: 76 n.76

HOMER

45. 52, 59> 60, 63, 64, 67, 78, 214//. 1.260-8: 59

2.305: 77 n.7911.632-7: 5912.380: 51 n.21

Od.9.499: 51 n.2121: 59

JOSEPHUS

2O.I54: I40BJ

7.21-2: I567.I58-62: I56

JUVENAL

1.6: 157.162-4:15

KEPHALION

23 n-55

KRATES

46 n.7

LAGTANTIUS

On the deaths of the persecutors33: I 0 5

LIVY

25.4O.2: 80, 128 n.7332.22.IO: I3433.32.4: I4I38.34: 88

LUCIAN

2, l6,Dialogues of the Dead

26Herodotos

1-2: 34Hist. Conscr.

63 21

Nero10:148

Peregrinus19: 38 n.104

Phalaris26

Rhetorum Praeceptor16-17: 21418: 14

Ver. Hist.1.4: 212.19: 78

£euxis or Antiochos1 0 0

MAXIMUS OF TYRE

26 n.66, 213

MENANDER RHETOR

On Epideictic445-! 5^9: 70

MYRON OF PRIENE

19, 39 p. IO8

NIKETES OF SMYRNA

14

PHILOSTRATOS

3OVA

4.18: 144 n. 114.24: 150 n.30, 1515.41: 141 n.6, 156

VS481: 14511-2: 14528-30: 182547-9: 200551: 37-8, 41 n.113, i n , 197551-2: 199557-8: 192565-6: 192585-90: 173 n.97

PHORMIS

46 n.7

PINDAR

fr. 121: 76 n.76

PLATO

37

PLINY

16, 17, 22, 47, 66, 75

Index of other authors and passages cited 239NH

4.10: 86, 109, 152, 1994.11: 1347.45-6: 140 n.37.126: 1067.191-215: 467.198:6922.92: 140 n.3

3436: 9134-37: 4434.52: 38-934.55: 8834.62: 8234.84: 140 n.3, 146, 15634.166: 140 n.335.24: 90, 9335.26: 10635.51-2: 140 n.335.70: 8235-94: 12735.131: 128 n.7335.136: 10636.9: 7136.28: 128 n.7336.37: 8836.45: 10036.45-6: 51 n.2136.122: 87 n.17

PLINY THE YOUNGER25Ep.

8.24: 24, I42IO.4O: I58

PLUTARCH6Aem.

29.3: 2032-3: 81 n.4

Ant.23.2: 98 n.4023.3: 98 n.4068.4: 122

Brutus24.1: 116 n.26

Flam.12.5: 14112.6-7: 96, 10312.8: 141

Marc.21.1: 81, 91

Pompey28.4: 134

Solon32.2: 173 n.98

Sulla6.12: 10512.1: 10112.1-2: 10412.2: 10212.4-5: 10312.6: 10313.1: 98, 104, 10513.4: 10114.1-5: 21, 10214.5: 9814.7: 100i7-i: 9926.1: 99, 101, 122, 20629.6: 10336: 10436.1: 105

Theseus24.3: 16625.3: 18136: 77 n.77

Comparison of Lysander and Sulla2.4: 104

Mor.207F: 122347A: 21567F-8: 141 n.6628 A: 193814C: 214

riepi TCOV ev TOCIS rTAocTaiafs SaiSaAcov23 n-57> 56

POLEMON OF ILION23 n-57> 39 n.108

POLYBIOS18, 186 n. 129

QUINTILIAN16

RHIANOS OF BENE19, 39 n. 108

25Suas.

1: 15

SKYLAXPeriplous

22-3

240 Index of other authors and passages cited

SOPHOCLES4611.7

fr. 837: 76 n.76

STRABO6.2.6: 56 n.408.5.1: i n8.6.18: 1328.6.23: 928.7-5: 134, 1359.1.15: 1009.1.17: 5411.339.1.20: 10110.2.2i: I35, I3610.2.22: I3413.1.54: 101, 20614.1.35: 51 n.21

SUETONIUS6, 84Aug.

l8.2: 108, 121, I3728.3: 121, 18360: 12593: 12294.4: I2O

Claudius11.3: 87 n.1720: 87 n.1721.1-3: 87 n.1725-5: 8742:87

Dom.23.1: 88

Gaius21: 86, 87 n.17, I 0922.2: 8457.1:85

Julius28.1: 106-744.1-3: 106-744.3: 10946: 10647: 10654.2: 107

Nero19.2: 109, 15122.3: 150 n.3023.1: 150, 151, 21024.1: 150 n.3024.2: 15025: 153 n.3632.4: 14534.4: 14440.3: 144 n.12

51: 150 n.3053: 153 n.36

Tib.47:83

Vesp.8.4: 1558.5-9.1: 156

Vit.5: 89 n.25

TACITUS84Ann.

I5-45: J4516.23: 145

THEOPHRASTUSIOILap.

9.69: 51 n.21

THUCYDIDES21, 140

I - I : 591.10: 601.20: 18 n.411.22: 752.15: 1664.53.2: 1646.1-5: 666.4: 61

VALERIUS MAXIMUS2.8.7: IO5

VELLEIUS PATERCULUS1.1 3.4: 94

VERGIL46Aeneid

8.704: 121

VITRUVIUS53

3.2.8: 125, 1765-5-8: 915.9.1: 1017 praef. 15: 1251 Praef. 17: 1257.5.3-8: 38 n. 103

XENOPHONAnab.

5.3.12: 54n-33

General index

Abai, 188, 212Achaia, 1, 2, 28, 89, 90, 109, 120, 138, 139,

141, 145, 155, 156, 189, 203, 206, 210,211-12

Acharnai, 130Achilles, 52, 147Acratus, 145Actium, 108, 121, 122, 123, 132, 135, 137,

152, 185, 187Aemilius Paullus, 20, 81 n.4, 103Agamedes, 41, 186Agamemnon, 63Agrippa, 82, 121Aiakos, 66Aigeira, 63Aigeus, 166, 169Aigina, 54, 57, 62, 122Aigion, 54n.3OAithidas, 191, 194-5Aizanoi, 13, 35 n.94, 188 n. 131Ajax, 66, 106Akamas, 169Alalkomenai, 102, 104, 137Alexander, 15, 26, 84, 105, 112, 120, 125,

127, 160Alkamenes, 71Alkathous, 66Alkyonian Lake, 142Alyattes, 18, 46Amazons, 61Amphiaraos, 98, 99Amphissa, 48, 65, 72Amphitrite, 41Anaxagoras, 62Andragathus, Ti. Cl. Attalus, 35 n.94Ankyra, 5, 28Anthemokritos, 13, 161Antigonos, 168Antikyra, 48^15Antinoopolis, 160Antinoos, 160, 164, 186-8

Antioch, 82, 152Antiochos IV Epiphanes, 125-6, 177Antiphemos, 68, 128Antoninus (Roman senator), 41, 189, 191,

194Antoninus Pius, 139, 183, 188-9, 2 I 1

Antony, 98, 121, 123, 128, 132Apelles, 84, 87, 127Aphrodisias, 118 n.35Aphrodite, 48^15, 63, 69Apollo, 50, 69, 86-7, 120-1, 137, 147,

I5on.3o, 153, 178, 188, 194, 212; statuesof, 52^25, 54, 60, 63, 64, 103, 113, 128,178, 188; temples of, 41 n.112, 55,72 n.68, 113-14, 121, 136, 137, 188

Ares, 121, 130Argive Heraion, 5, 56, 126, 143, 148, 185Argonauts, 64Argos, 55, 56, 57, 71, 165, 184Ariadne, 69-70Ariobarzanes Philopator, 101Aristion, 100-1, 104-5, 2O7Aristogeiton, 18 n.41, 116Aristokles, 61Arkas, 77Arrachion, 61Artemis, 54, 128, 136, 199Asklepios, 11 n.23, 40, 41, 51 n.21, 99^45,

161, 184, 189, 194Asopos, 134Astykrateia, 66Athena, 48, 51 n.21, 56, 57, 65, 66, 68, 69,

76, 85, 102, 123, 124, 128, 136, 137,152, i53n.38, 163, 174, 197, 199

Athens, 12, 13, 14, 15, 30, 35, 41-2, 44 andn-3> 55> 77> 85> 88, 93, 97-8, 99-102,104, 105, 108-9, II0> 122-3, I26> 128,129, 132, 138, 143-5, 151, !53-5> 157,159, 160, 162, 164-83, 200, 204, 206-7,210-n ; Agora, 86, 116, 124, 130, 167,184; Agora of Caesar and Augustus

241

242 General index

Athens (cont.)('Roman Agora'), 107, 122, 123, 129,176, 177; Akropolis, 29, 44 n.4, 48, 55,70, 86, 98n.4o, 100, 124, 150, 163, 170,193; aqueduct of Hadrian, 112, 183,184; arch of Hadrian, 178-80, 182-3,184, 200; Areopagus, 49, 153 n.38, 154,178; Athena Polias shrine, 55, 70;basilica of Hadrian, 183, 184;Delphinion, 178; Eponymous Heroes,41, 166, 168-71, 184; Erechtheion, 124;Hephaisteion, 212; Ilissos area, 171, 176,179, 181; Kerameikos, 17, 21-2, 102;library of Hadrian, 171, 177, 184, 201;library of Pantainos, 157; Odeion ofAgrippa, 130; Odeion of HerodesAtticus, 37 n. 101, 40, 196, 201; Odeionof Perikles, 100-1; Panathenaia, 165-6,181; Pantheon, 171—2, 176; Parthenon,36^99, ii5n.23, 116, 124, 150, 153-5,163, 174, 184, 212; Philopapposmonument, 191-3, 195; Propylaia,51 n.22; Sarapis sanctuary, 172; stadiumof Herodes Atticus, 51 n.21, 196; stoa ofAttalos, 83; Stoa Poikile, 10; StoaRoyal, 49, 167 n.90; stoa of Zeus, 101,166-7, 173? temple of Ares, 121, 130;temple of Athena Nike, 51 n.21; templeof Eileithyia, 54, 65, 172; temple ofHera Panhellenia and ZeusPanhellenios, 175-6; temple of Kronosand Rhea, 175; temple of OlympianZeus (Olympieion), 51, 100, 112, 125-6,158, 162, 172-8, 184, 185, 201, 211-12;temple of Roma and Augustus, 29^79,123-5, I29~3°> 154; theatre of Dionysos,101, 123, 154-5, 163, 183, i99n.24;Themistoklean wall, 179; tholos, 52, 125

Atreus, 63Attalos, 83, 93, 168, 170Augustus, 4-5, i8n.4o, 36, 76, 80, 82, 83,

84-5, 86, 97n.39, 106, 108, i n , 115,116-38, 139, 144, 149, 150, 151, 152,153, 156, 160, 161, 172, 183, 185, 205,207-8, 209; cults of, 117-18, 120,123-5, X3^' ! ^ 3 ' :^7> 199n.24; statuesof, 52-3, 85, 87, 88, 117, 120, 126-7,129; temples of, 83, 129, 131; see alsoAthens, temple of Roma and Augustus;Res Gestae, 5, 28, 116, 121-2, 138

Aulis, 77n.79

Bithynia, 158Branchidai see MiletosBrauron, 128

Britain, 87, 143Britomartis, 69Brundisium, 184Brutus, 116Bybon, 60Byzantium, 106, 155

Caligula, 81, 82, 84-6, 87^17, 108n.7, 109,123, 146, 151, 152, 161, 199, 208-9, 210

Cannae, 15Carthage, 160, 180, 189Caryanda, 22Cassander, 105Cassius, 116Chaironeia, 63, 71, 73Chios, 99Claudius, 81, 82, 84-5, 86, 87, 88, 127, 139,

143, 146, 152, 155, 161, 199, 208-9Corinth, 3, 4, 20, 28, 42, 56, 63, 68, 80-1,

83, 89-97, 102, 105, 107-14, 122, 126,129, 133, 134-6, 138, 151-2, 182, 183,184, 185, 193, 198, 203, 205, 207-8,211; canal, 86, 109, 142, 151-2,199-200, 209

Cossutius, 126, 158, 177Crete, 56, 69cult, 3, 9, 11, 26, 27, 32, 33, 44, 76, 113-14,

136, 138, 160, 162, 180, 185, 187; seealso imperial cult

Cyclopes, 60Cyrus, 26, 188

Dacia, 158Dacians, 157Daidalos, 56-7, 67-74, I 2 ^Damaretos, 58, 61 n.51Damophon, 51 n.21Danaos, 55, 65Darius, 128Delos, 61 n.51, 65, 69, 172Delphi, 18, 44 and n.3, 46, 50, 74, 77, 96,

97, 102, 103, 125, 129, 144, 145,146-50, 151, 160, 162, 165, 167, 169,175, 185, 209; Athenian stoa, 29, 74;Knidian Lesche, 16; Marmaria, 125,182, 197-8; Pythian games, 44,153 n.36, 165; stadium, 51 n.21, 131,197; temple of Apollo, 41 n.112, 88,98n.4o, 121 n.47, 186; tholos, 125

Demeter, 51, 64, 198Demosthenes, 15Deukalion, 173, 176Dionysos, 52, 53, 54, 56, 66, 102, n o , 130,

155, 161Dioskouroi, 57, 71, 127

General index 243Dipoinos, 57, 71, 72-3Domitian, 4211.118, 81, 87-9, 139, 143 210Dreros, 72 n.68Drusus, Caesar, 121, 130Dyme, 134, 13511.91, 138

education, 7, 15, 17, 20, 24, 34, 35, 45, 67,78, 133

Egypt. 55Eileithyia, 54, 65, 172ekphrasis, 16, 20, 27, 31, 70Eleusis, 76, 97, 178, 190; Mysteries, 11 n.23,

68-9, 87, 97-8, 99-100, 122, 144-5,164, 187, 209

Elis, 3711.101, 44, 57, 191 n.iemperor worship, see imperial cultemperors, 1, 3, 4, 5-6, 87, 123, 129, 197,

200, 201; see also individual emperorsenargeia, 21Endoios, 47Epaminondas, 47n.io, 186Ephesos, 13, 88n.2o, 161, 183Epidauros, 41, 53 n.26, 102, 103, 125, 167,

189, 194Eponymous Heroes, see Athens, Eponymous

HeroesErechtheus, 166Eretria, 122Erichthonios, 165Eridanos (river), 52Erinyes, 143Eros, 48, 84, 86, 146Erysichthon, 65, 172Erythrai, 37, 47Ethiopia, 51 n.22Euagoras, 61Eumenes, 170Eurykles of Sparta, i n , 131 n. 78, 132,

181 n.119, 187, 191, 193-4Eurykles M. Ulp. Appuleius, 35 n.94Eurymedon (river), 214

Flamininus, 81 n.4, 91, 92, 96, 103, 135, 141,203

Gaius Caesar (son of Agrippa), 121, 130Galba, 81, 87, 139, 150 n.29, 210Galerius, 105games, 12, 25, 83, 133, 137, 150, 159, 160,

162, 164-5, I ^5 , 187, 193 n.6see also Isthmian games; Delphi, Pythiangames; Nemean games; Olympic games

Gaul, 107Gela, 68, 128Germanicus, 29^79, 150 n.28

Getae, 157Glaukos, 46Gortys, 51 n.21Gytheion, 49-50, 83, 133, 152

Hadrian, 6, 7, 11, 12-13, 14, 15, 24, 25, 28,29-30, 35, 36, 41, 80, 97n.39, 100, 102,108, 111-12, 116, 117, 122, 126, 138,139, 142, 143, 156, 159-88, 194, 200-1,205, 208, 209, 210-12, 215; cults of, 87,117, 119, 121, 133 n.86, 159, 161-3,166-7, 175? T99n-24; statues of, 50,157-8, 163, 167, 168-70, 172, 173,174-5, lH~5> 2 I °

Hadrianotherai, i6on.6oHalikarnassos, 23Hannibal, 15Harmodios, 1811.41, 116Harmonia, 65Helike, 77Helikon, 102, 104Helios, 146, 153 n.36Hephaistos, 63-4, 71, 73Hera, 5, 56, 126, 128

see also Athens, temple of Hera,Panhellenia and Zeus Panhellenios;Olympia, temple of Hera

Herakleia, 62Herakles, 37, 49, 50, 53 n.26, 54, 56, 61, 63,

68, 69, 151, 153 n.36Herkyna, 99^45Hermes, 49, 53, 55, 63, 70, n oHerodes, Atticus, 3, 37-8, 41, 81, 86, 109,

i n , 131, 191-2, 195-201, 211-12Hestia, 125 n.68Hieronymos, of Cardia, 105 n.61Hippias, 173Hippodamos, 46historiography, 5, 11, 18-19, 20-2, 39 n. 108,

138, 170Hyampolis, 177, 188, 211Hyettos, 49, 50Hygieia, 99^45Hylai, 60Hysmon, 57

Ikarios, 65Ilion see Troyimperial cult, 5, 12 n.26, 83, 108, 117-18,

119-21, 122, 123-4, 125, 130, 132 n.80,133 n.86, 134, 158, 161, 162-3, J82,185, 195, 212

Iphigeneia, 66Isthmian games, 107-8, n o , 139, 140, 141,

151, 165; see also Corinth canal

244 General index

Isthmus of Corinth (Isthmia), 41, 108, i n ,122, 181, 198, 201, 212

Jerusalem, 88Julius, Caesar, 3, 4, 36, 80, 86, 94-5,

106-16, 124, 126, 129, 131-2, 134, 138,151, 160, 199, 204-8

Kadmos, 53, 65Kalamis, 62Kallimachos, 45-6, 47, 73Kallion, 20Kallipolis, 66Kallon, 57Kalydon, 136Kalydonian boar, 76-7, 128Kanachos, 62Kapaneus, 68, 128Kar, 64Kekrops, 55, 70, 166, 168Kephallenia, 16311.76Kephisodotos, 51 n.21Klearchos, 71Kleisthenes, 169Kleoitas, 48Kleomenes, 105Kleon, 57Knossos, 56, 69Kolotes, 62Koroibos, 65Korone/Koroneia, 30, 64Kos, 189Kostoboks, 190Kreusis, 52Kroisos, 26, 60, 103Kronos, 50, 175Kydonia, 61Kylon, 64Kypselos, 16Kythera, 164Kyzikos, 128, 161

language, 15, 25, 26, 27-31, 164, 214Laphaes, 63Lebadeia, 69, 51 n.22, 98, 99^45Lechaion, 42Lethaios (river), 60Libya, 177Limyra, 125^69Linos, 77Livia, 83, i33n.86Loukou, 191Lupiae, 184Lycia, 99, 155Lydia, 8, 46Lykios, 29

Lykourgan customs, 25, 32, 143, 164Lykourgos, 25Lysippos, 75, 82

Macedonia, 77, 81 n.4, 89, 93, 140, 185,202-3

Magnesia, 60, 77^78, 99Magnesia ad Sipylum, 8, i2n.26, 13, 207Mainalos, 77Manilius Acilius, 103Mantinea, 41, 52, 77, 132, 185-8Manto, 66Marathon, 10, 51 n.22, 191, 200, 214Marcellus, 80-1, 91, 128^73Marcus Aurelius, 3, 80, 139, 190, 200, 211Mardonios, 70-1Marmaria see DelphiMarsyas, 65^56Masistios, 70-1Medea, 106, 113^17Megalopolis, 77, 88Megara, 12-13, 50, 51, 56, 63, 64, 65, 66,

98n.4o, 161, 181-2, 183-4, 2 I 1

Melampous, 66Meleager, 65^56Memnon, 52Mende, 58^46Messene (Messenia), 47 n. 10, 78, 191,

195 n. 11Messene see ZankleMetellus, 81, 212Mikythos, 147Miletos, 62, 128Miltiades, 126Minos, 56Mithridates, 100, 207Mnesiboulos, 190Mothone, 157, 210Mummius, 3, 20, 80-1, 83, 89-97, 102, 103,

105, 106-8, n o , 116, 126 n.71, 140,142, 146, 151, 159, 191 n.1, 202, 203-6,211-12, 215

Myonia, 135Myron, 29, 57, 102, 104Myrrhinous, 199

% 33> 34> 74

Naples, 153 n. 36Narbonensis, 160Naupaktos, 135Nemean, games, 165, 210Nemesis, 5411.33Nero, 24-5, 44 n.4, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 93,

109, 115 n.23, 116, 121 n.44, 124, 129,135, 139-55, X57' 161, 185, 199-200,205, 208-10, 211

General index 245Nerva, 81, 87, 139Nestor, 59Nikomedia, 52Nikopolis, 108, 121, 133, 13511.91, 136, 137,

208

Octavia, 108, i n , 129Odysseus, 59, 60, 65, 147Oedipus, 70Oiantheia, 135Olenos, 134Olous, 69Olympia, 17, 37, 40, 44 andn.3, 48, 51 and

n.21, 52, 57, 58 andn.46, 60, 61, 62, 72,73> 76, 96, 102, 103, 109, 112, 126, 127,143, 145, 146-50, 151, 160, 167, 176,185, 191 n.i, 198, 209, 212;Epidamnian, treasury, 53 n.26; Metroon,87, 88, 96, 120, 121, 130, 134, 157-8,182, 185; nymphaion of HerodesAtticus, 37, 44, 111-12, 179, 198;Pheidias' statue of Zeus, 16, 3611.99,5111.22, 84-5, 174; Philippeion, 51,12011.42, 125, 174; temple of Hera, 16,47> 53? 72, 158; temple of Zeus, 16, 34,5111.21, 96, 148, 157-8, 163, 184-5,210

Olympic games, 38-9, 51, 60, 61, 63, 66,68-9, 88, 151, 15311.36, 165, 190, 209,210

Omphake, 68, 128Orchomenos, 102, 104Orestes, 5, 49-50, 66, 77, 85, 126-7, 129Oresthasion, see MegalopolisOrontes (river), 82Oropos, 98Ostia, 87Otho, 81, 87, 139, 210Otilius, 81 n.4, 203

Palaimon (Melikertes), 41Palamedes, 6511.56Pallanteion, 189Pandion, 168Panhellenion, 12-13, 14, 24, 25, 35, 162,

163, 165, 172, 174-6, 178, 192Panopeus, 51Paros, 62Parrhasios, 82Parthia, 158Parthians, 157past, interest in the, 13, 14-15, 24-7, 29-30,

31, 32, 37, 43-79, 155, 159, 160, 162,164, 166, 173, 181, 186, 202, 204,212-15

Patara, 63

Patrai, 28, 29^78, 40, 64, 90, no, 134-8,196, 207-8

Pedasos, 157Peiraeus, 77^78, 99, 100Peirasos, 56Peirithoos, 172Peisistratids, 173Peisistratos, 18, 125, 164, 165, 173Peloponnesian war, 60Pelops, 63Penelope, 65Pentheus, 110Pergamon, 11 n.23, 13, 34, 40, 93-4, 109,

145, 150, 161, 183, 188 n.131, 207Periboia, 66periegesis, 2, 21, 22-3, 43Perikles, 15Perseus, 90, 203Persian wars, 3, 70-1, 74Phaidra, 65, 172Pharai, 49, 134, 136, 138, 208Phaselis, 52Pheidias, 16, 36^99, 51 nn.21-2, 75, 85,

174Phigaleia, 61Philip II, 77, 120, 125Philopoimen, 77^78, 93-4Phlious, 44 n.3, 63Phormio, 74Plataiai, 35 n.94, 56, 70, 214Polydoros, 53Polyidos, 56, 66Polykleitos, 62, 73Pompey, 83, 134, 138Poseidon, 41 and n.113, 48^14, 55, 107,

185-6, 198, 199Praxiteles, 51 n.21Prokonnesos, 52, 128protos heuretes, 46, 67, 72Ptolemy, 168, 170, 172Pydna, 81 n.4, 108Pyrrhos, 147

Regilla, 38, 198, 200religion, 10, 34, 76, 93, 113, 169Rhamnous, 540.33Rhea, 175Rhegion, 71rhetoric, n n.23, 14~I5^ 20, 21-2, 25, 26, 27,

32, 133? I41? !73n-97Rhodes, 44, 99, 145-6, 155-6, 172, 189Rhoikos, 64, 72Rhypes, 134-5Roma, cult of, 98, 108-9, I 2 3 , 124, 184, 199;

see also Athens, temple of Roma andAugustus

246 General index

Rome, 2, 7, 14, 15, 33, 42, 82, 84-5, 87,8911.25, 91-2, 93-4, 100, 121-2, 124-6,136, 138, 146, 147 n.19, 156, 157, 158,166, 172, 177, 183, 202, 208

Romulus, 166-7

Sacred war, 102Saithida, see AithidasSamikon, 51Samos, 22, 68, 11811.35, 135, 152 n.34, 155Sarapis, 172Sardinia, 140Sardis, 13Sarmatians (Sauromati), 52, 189-90Scipio, 91Second, Sophistic, 14, 16, 25-6, 30, 200, 213Secundus Carrinas, 145, 154Seleukos, 128Seven against Thebes, 59Sicily, 31, 68, 128Sikyon, 57, 63, 107-8, i nSipylos, see Magnesia ad SipylumSkiron, 182, 211Skopas, 51 n.21, 75Skyllis, 57, 71, 72-3, 147Smilis, 68Smyrna, 13, 40, 160Sokrates, 78Solon, 26sophists, sophistic practice/movement,

1 in.23, 14, 15, 19-20, 21, 22, 27, 31-3,34, 35, 67, 200, 204, 206, 214

Spain, 107Sparta, 30, 32, 35^94, 44 n.3, 65, 71, 77-8,

83, 105, i n , 129, 130-1, 132-4, 143,144-5. i52-3» l56> 159, 163, 165,173 n.99, 191, 193; Artemis Orthiasanctuary, 25, 30, 66

Sthenelos, 68, 128Stiris, 51Stymphalos, i n , 184, 209Sulla, 3, 22, 80, 84, 85, 89, 97-105, 107, 116,

122, 123, 126, 132, 135, 137, 142, 157,206-7, 2°8, 210, 211-12

Sulpicius, 134Syracuse, 80, 91, 128^73Syria, 189

Tegea, 49 n. 16, 76-7, 78, 128Teiresias, 48^15

Telamon, 66Theagenes, 182Thebes, 53, 59, 62, 69, 77, 99, 101, 102, 104Themistokles, 77^78, 126Theodoros, 64, 72, 152Thermopylai, 101Theseus, 14, 18, 69-70, 77, 165-7, 169, 172,

178, 179-81, 182, 200, 210-11Thespiai, 48, 84, 86, 146Thoas, 65, 72Thyestes, 63Tiberius, 81, 82-3, 86, 108 n.6, 121, 133,

i38nn.ioi-2, 146, 152, 156, 191 n.i,208

Timomachos, 106Tiryns, 56, 59, 128Tisamenos, 77Titane, 54Titus, 88, 116, 139, 156, 210Trajan, 42, i38nn.ioi-2, 139, 143, 156-9,

161, 163, 181 n.i 19, 185, 210, 211travel, 9, 16, 17, 31-2, 33, 35-6, 192; see also

periegesisTriteia, 134, 135, 136, 138Triton, 41Troizen, 49, 57Trojan war, 60, 68, 71, 72, 78, 129Trophonios, architect, 41, 186Trophonios, oracle of, 69, 98, 99 n.45Troy, 65, 68, 72, 99, 128Tydeus, 48n.i5

Verres, 31, 91Vespasian, 82, 87, 93, 115, 139, 140-1, 155—

6, 157, 205, 210Vitellius, 81, 87, 89n.25, 139, 156, 210

Xerxes, 128, 156, 188xoanon, 52^25, 54-7, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69,

7on.62, 110

Zankle, 61Zeus, 40, 47, 49n.i6, 50, 54^30, 63, 68, 71,

87, 96-7, 101,112, 120, 125, 128, 161,162, 163, 166-7, X73> r75> 2 I 25 see a^so

Olympia, temple of Zeus; Athens, stoaof Zeus, temple of Hera Panhellenia andZeus Panhellenios, temple of OlympianZeus, Pheidias' Zeus at Olympia

Zeuxis, 100